Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 July 2016 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2BE12D63A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T8K1NtUU1mj7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A21D12B024 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 38so101963252iol.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pSp9mJIceWR4YYT7X+oCN06DhgZwq1r3AWxDiqBzDFg=; b=hAayq01Li0AUMhz+JhCEm5NFtXnI64t1xS98a8p2abHiPNrfvbPsNCdjjQPRQTcp0q 00KXZFmrdGyKOi+rrhVhNRaMz2vG+HmzZG30VhWTesPJQjSPC8Rsw2HTj16rKMeR0IN4 hIHHzXaHyrPVPuF4wkANRe8Sr92N6wzumG6JsZWYRdRkxBIuMfKhRWablb9KSHwm/5xw maYPF3ZPNW14lgxQPlVwHkaDluhfkrzeAaWM6kArzGG751BVu7vGyVXyXbPdfpPKOcTn ywO28w06lhCpgFOkRaKKFtoGTIi12D5dwTcvpm9ZJXAEcp6pTpVEvuA4NX9jTkygy8tu WTRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pSp9mJIceWR4YYT7X+oCN06DhgZwq1r3AWxDiqBzDFg=; b=R9wH45CNPB9BJbf9AxY55AFtTmWpUMfPNawf1hekILyn3w4jDeCcidXBJJZustkC2i 8FnjLQ4Q48j7GgPh2W4l57GS5zAT+IAur/J+8T0sKNI1gK1Ug1gjNakkNrjCrmyr8qug uGJszP+p1RcSd7ChXlkMCmqeC9ZP63tbBafhN8AfHG+49aeOv6rNHC/8i+jVJB8qRrmh XW1GdJQjBMJdhqYN7Zm7SOgN8bd5jTYC45sJdtUkvZcv/IBPCWSQdqsAHqBlpPY0n8YF SgetU007Mdr9jzb/RDDnimLi9f0D2czGGIzIera3koeWCjnwChZZfGweRa7wu+x+H7U3 5+dA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutSCr+b7Z5tTBPqaOvuXZ7SOvyjfhB9N7RWxqm6EqUD9iVLRWhP1XyudeHUawZqG5vTG2JaKCsP7+k/h+X1
X-Received: by 10.107.9.6 with SMTP id j6mr38833778ioi.89.1469717846729; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.26.72 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <516a0ed770414d0095ca69905c3a83a3@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
References: <8c706ad593cc403d9e738c7aafec8360@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5671d2f3bf364bec9b70ab8cbb9cd2a9@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <9db5a86d50314519b4fcc4589717f802@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <f98d75f73d224798a406084fdb4cdedc@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <F22A046E-27FA-4EED-9699-70A6B3D49A66@gmx.com> <20AC7B4D-430C-4D56-8D5C-1E134AEEDA76@employees.org> <516a0ed770414d0095ca69905c3a83a3@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:57:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2nx_GeyZJ7YA3b1zktRUG-yvkRQKOVywzg0i7s=WTyaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f9bd02d035d0538b35a99
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/3WSm82WIjQ-YTqUyhs-2qZnswgY>
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:57:29 -0000

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> And, note that Fred had indicated "I'm operating on a link where I don't
> need to get any configuration information from RS/RA - everything comes
> from DHCPv6." So, looks like at least he wants DHCPv6 option(s).


Yes, but it doesn't have to be that way. Sending an RA would work just as
well. Like all RA parameters, it also has the advantage that it is easier
to update dynamically if needed. Doing that in DHCPv6 is more difficult,
because at least as of RFC3315bis, it looks like reconfigure messages MUST
be discarded if they do not include authentication.