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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 02 August 2010 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9283A6B1B for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aQJm0A9MhM40 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0722A3A6B2F for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o7290ZH4007627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:00:35 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7290ZKr006475; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:00:35 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o7290Y0R008493; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:00:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4C568932.2020806@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:00:34 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: autoconf@ietf.org
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl> <ABE739C5ADAC9A41ACCC72DF366B719D034C5D21@GLKMS2100.GREENLNK.NET> <9ED0AF66-FB65-485C-B418-E25200A0DE88@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <9ED0AF66-FB65-485C-B418-E25200A0DE88@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:00:10 -0000

Le 31/07/2010 13:19, Teco Boot a écrit :
> Chris, thanks for sharing your opinion.
>
> On using DHCP, the draft charter, workitem 1, specifies usage of
> DHCPv6. When thinking on how this could work, I want to know what
> requirements are.

Right, me too, I think a good question is whether we agree the DHCP
Server sits on a sort of a fixed Gateway to which nodes attach:


     ----------                      ----------
    | Fixed    |                    | Fixed    |
    |DHCPServer|                    |DHCPServer|
     ----------                      ----------
          |                              |
          |                         Fixed Network
          O       Or is it:              |
                                     ----------
     o nodes o                      | Fixed    |
                                    |DHCPRelay |
   o   o       o                     ----------
                                          |
                                          |
                                          O

                                     o nodes o

                                    o   o       o
> Did I catch "un-touched DHCPv6" at the meeting?

I think I did hear that too... I think it could be good idea.

Alex

> On RFC 3091 and dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful, the recommendations are
> in RFC 4901.
>
> The change on site duplicates for well generated CGA or private IIDs
> is close to zero. I think duplicate address problems with DHCP
> servers on CPE devices are far larger than self-generated IIDs
> because reboots and non-volatile storage or lazy write.
>
> Using DHCP provided addresses could provide more efficient
> compression with RFC 5444. EUI-64 needs 3 (same OUI in homogenous
> MANET) or 8 octets. CGA or private IIDs needs 8 octets. Centrally
> managed addresses could result in less, with 1 octet at a minimum.
> This would be a good reason to use the more centralized approach.
>
> Teco.
>
>
> Op 30 jul 2010, om 15:52 heeft Dearlove, Christopher (UK) het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>> Teco
>>> Question: can we get around a MUST in a standards track RFC? I
>>> don't think so.
>>
>> There is the "don't use that RFC, use another one - or none"
>> approach.
>>
>>> Second question, on first item in charter: do we limit ourself
>>> to MANET routers that has modified EUI-64 link-locals?
>>
>> Definitely not. There are issues with EUI-64. One of these is
>> privacy/security. If I use a device today, and use the same device
>> at a different time and in a different place, it's still clearly
>> identified as the same device. That can be a problem.
>>
>> There's a discussion in RFC 3041. That's obsoleted by RFC 4941. I
>> mention the older version as someone was concered enough to write
>> draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-05.txt that argued against RFC
>> 3041 (but never made it to RFC). My point is, there are issues,
>> and people of goodwill and expertise disagree on the subject.
>> Probably because of different backgrounds and assumptions. One size
>> does not fit all.
>>
>> -- Christopher Dearlove Technology Leader, Communications Group
>> Networks, Security and Information Systems Department BAE Systems
>> Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow,
>> Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124
>>
>> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House,
>> PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14
>> 6YU, UK Registered in England&  Wales No: 1996687
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>>  You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>