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

Teco,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:autoconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Teco Boot
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:58 AM
> To: autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64interfaces?
> 
> 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.

If the MANET router only behaves as a client on an internal
link (e.g., a loopback) but behaves as a relay on its MANET
interfaces, then link-locals need not be exposed for DHCPv6
purposes. There are other reasons why link-locals might need
to be considered for MANETs, but I'm not sure this is one
of them.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Teco.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf