Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64 interfaces?

Alexandru Petrescu <> Mon, 02 August 2010 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372AE3A6B1D for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.145
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-5cYRwvhskD for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C202B3A6B1C for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o728ppXH003869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:51:51 +0200
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o728ppQs003923; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:51:51 +0200 (envelope-from
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o728poFH005303; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:51:51 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:51:50 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv: Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Teco Boot <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64 interfaces?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:51:28 -0000

Le 30/07/2010 13:57, Teco Boot a écrit :
> RFC3315: ...     The client MUST use a link-local address assigned
> to the interface for which it is requesting configuration information
> as the source address in the header of the IP datagram.
> Question: can we get around a MUST in a standards track RFC? I don't
> think so.

I think it wouldn't be good to get around that MUST.

I was thinking about the same thing as you say: if RFC5889 forbids link
local addresses and new Charter wants DHCP then how could both work?

Maybe RFC5889 just discourages the AUTOCONF mechanism from configuring
link-local addresses.  I.e. let DHCP configure global addresses, even
though during the initial DHCP exchanges the link-local addresses are used.


> The to be posted proposed text for to be RFC5889 would say that if
> link-locals are used, there are potential problems when using other
> than modified EUI-64 IIDs, and therefore must be based on modified
> EUI-64 IIDs.

I wouldn't go that far with requiring modified EUI-64 IIDs - why do you
think rfc5889 requires use of modified IIDs?

Let's see first what is the recommendation of RFC5889-to-be with respect
to link-local addresses, and following the WG meeting discussion.

> Second question, on first item in charter: do we limit ourself to
> MANET routers that has modified EUI-64 link-locals? I think: better
> think twice.

I am trying to see where the modified EUI64 ideas come from, I don't see


> Opinions?
> Teco.
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list