Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Because of many reasons.  The most recent popped up in mail box this 
morning - again has to do with modem and lack of DHCPv6.

But at IETF, do you know whether there is a DHCPv6 Server up?  I would 
like to test Prefix Delegation on "ietf-v6ONLY".

The RA on "ietf-v6ONLY" has bit "Managed address configuration" not set; 
and I can not see any DHCPv6 traffic there.

Alex


Le 14/11/2017 à 15:53, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> Why is it an unsolved problem?
> 
> On Nov 14, 2017 22:30, "Alexandre Petrescu" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Le 14/11/2017 à 08:38, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> 
>         On Nov 14, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Templin, Fred L
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
> 
>             I
>             think I have a fair question. How can we get the
>             functionality of IPv6ND
>             RA and DHCPv6 PD in a single request/response message exchange?
> 
> 
>         Right now, you can't.   The question is, why is this a problem?
> 
>         We've been around on this a lot of times.   I don't see any
>         reason to do it again.   But if you want to do it, you need to
>         say why it's a problem that you have to do router discovery, why
>         it's better to configure the DHCP server with router topology
>         information, how you're going to get the right router link-local
>         address to send, and why all of this complexity is somehow a
>         better solution than router advertisements.
> 
> 
>     Ted,
> 
>     The combined use of DHCPv6 and SLAAC is an unsolved problem in
>     cellular networks.  Add to that the implications of the use of an
>     undocumented link-layer setup protocol ("PDP") in the address formation.
> 
>     A second aspect is that for full configuration one must use both
>     DHCPv6-PD and SLAAC.
> 
>     If we agree to those two points then it's easy to see the
>     consequences which go along the lines that Fred proposes.
> 
>     But if people dont agree DHCPv6 is needed, then it's a waste of time
>     to explain.
> 
>     One could as well go to 3GPP and tell them to offer not only address
>     setup in PDP but also prefix delegation.  That may be less time to
>     spend than do it at IETF.
> 
>     Alex
> 
> 
>         It's not good enough to just say "I'd really rather use DHCPv6
>         for this, can't we specify that?"
> 
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         dhcwg mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     dhcwg mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>
>