Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 1:39 AM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> I wrote some text at:
>   https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dhc-addr-notification/pull/68
>
> and I'm sorry to open this can of worms, but I don't think that enterprises
> will be happy without this.  In particular, our desire to enable more
> (permissionless) DHCPv6-PD downstream will get the same pushback that has
> lead to this document.
>

I'm not sure we should take the document in that direction. Jen's concerns
about removing the security and defining a general proxy mechanism are very
valid. If we do want to do this I think it will require a lot more work:
when will the messages be sent? What's the authentication model? What about
privacy? And so on.

Regarding your "enterprises won't be happy without this" comment... why do
you say this? One of the goals of this document is to get
roughly equivalent forensics and logging abilities to what we have with
IA_NA today (assuming cooperating hosts). But AFAICT the hierarchical
notifications you describe aren't something that exists today with IA_NA.
The enterprise either uses a local DHCPv6 server that is authoritative for
the local prefix, or it uses a centralized DHCPv6 server to assign all
addresses. In the former case, the only information about which addresses
are assigned locally is in the logs of the local DHCPv6 server. The
mechanism being proposed in this draft has the same properties.

Am I missing something?