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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
>>
>> 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
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>