Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-6man-default-iids Section 4 & 6.9 (DHCPv6)

otroan@employees.org Thu, 21 July 2016 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 2539B12DAE3; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 RUCJ9wKoGvbh; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from incoming.kjsl.com (inbound02.kjsl.com [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B262912D0A3; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([65.50.211.142]) by ironport02.kjsl.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jul 2016 08:45:17 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9419CC4F; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=VKr4IWWtpksTpd1c/efOWYAPBVQ=; b= rYfF6hgtWnpAegYZVV1jfjXU9igMLqKkr+m5QvMiA5uyIMWcaLEqcOFUd2zAQPAk 9umXUVsJ4twkoVga5fsbrMkGbdpEc7Cjz8xz9RFQHpjyslfkoXxjAMpdGW9r1VAq fSHCdOmiY6bwPAcgfkkPqOP2S838He+sb9R43926vOE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=nXcv6iwPAO+dQjuthwUlOyreGm bYy3dNnddXHAFv9maip23UNGYOKpNitCpaWirRu9Ue78KqLHftoH44R/m35gbGO4 d8f4cRzUpyUlYiO7R5nksJbjvsrGXein89MZg3Ob1jfnu4PoR5OtwcbQhC0l+WOT 3vtWJMiadR7/pw1lQ=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (2.150.3.47.tmi.telenormobil.no [2.150.3.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 374989CC4E; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 01:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22D62B95830; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:45:13 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8D9AC5BE-059B-49CD-A8F2-4ADF4CB2B4B9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <D3B60069.31262%volz@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:45:13 +0200
Message-Id: <43CE5CAD-2D98-4A75-BF33-E5B415B1013C@employees.org>
References: <D3B60069.31262%volz@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Eg73oL7I3G0y0LkhCna3UPoslG0>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "6man@tools.ietf.org" <6man@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org>, "dhcpv6bis@ietf.org" <dhcpv6bis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-6man-default-iids Section 4 & 6.9 (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, 21 Jul 2016 08:45:21 -0000

Bernie, et al,

The first line of the abstract says:
   "This document changes the recommended default IID generation scheme
   for cases where SLAAC is used to generate a stable IPv6 address."

I'm not convinced that we need to have the DHCP paragraph there at all.
Would that work for you?

Best regards,
Ole


> On 21 Jul 2016, at 10:30, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Alissa, et al:
> 
> Based on a conversation between some of the draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis coauthors and in the DHC WG session Wednesday (7/20) morning, we are not in favor of the replacement text as it currently stands. We will work something up and send it to you as soon as we can.
> 
> We are likely to simplify the replacement text to something like the following (but this is only my proposal and has not been reviewed by others):
> 
>     By default, DHCPv6 server implementations SHOULD NOT generate
>     predictable IPv6 addresses ([RFC7721]). DHCPv6 servers SHOULD
>     NOT assign addresses that use a reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier
>     ([RFC5453], [RFC7136], and [IANARESERVEDIID]).
> 
> We are tracking this issue at https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/166.
> 
> - Bernie
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg