Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 28 July 2016 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 23C5D12D7F5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wCt4iButtKj4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.20.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 694D112D647 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id u6SFAAa8037483; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:10:10 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-06.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-05-06.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.137.100.84]) by ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id u6SFA88h037465 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:10:09 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:6450::8989:6450) by XCH15-05-06.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:6454::8989:6454) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:10:08 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.137.100.80]) by XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.137.100.80]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:10:08 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?
Thread-Index: AdHoQoGGAMbjaqWBR9aaxP1yToT6sgAB2X5AAABnFgAAJTbdGQAATchg
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:10:08 +0000
Message-ID: <4725f6ba7bbf4b9ab5c4c23a04f41518@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.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> <CAKD1Yr2nx_GeyZJ7YA3b1zktRUG-yvkRQKOVywzg0i7s=WTyaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2nx_GeyZJ7YA3b1zktRUG-yvkRQKOVywzg0i7s=WTyaw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4725f6ba7bbf4b9ab5c4c23a04f41518XCH150505nwnosboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/6gjS0oR3mZYAmZpPj0pUp9v41ko>
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 15:10:12 -0000

RA doesn’t provide nearly the same configuration flexibility as DHCPv6. RA also
doesn’t have Rebind/Renew/Release messags that can be used to manage
mobiole devices. And, RA also does not have DHCPv6 Security. (RA does have
SEND, but I have not heard of that as being widely deployed). Finally, RA does
not have the back-end database management capabilities that are built into
common public domain DHCPv6 implementations.

Thanks – Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 7:57 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: otroan@employees.org; Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>om>; Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

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