IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 28 July 2016 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 F32C512D805 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 7PvdoIHyY168 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51D8C12D105 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id u6SFJMIu000326 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:19:22 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CE92208317 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:19:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2392B2082D2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:19:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id u6SFJLcf028784 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:19:22 +0200
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
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> <4725f6ba7bbf4b9ab5c4c23a04f41518@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f72eede6-83b8-80bb-573c-17580d0e02a5@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:19:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4725f6ba7bbf4b9ab5c4c23a04f41518@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/LVcwIyRN1StU8Z2NjrDA-5WYQmI>
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 15:19:27 -0000

On point to point links like cellular, RA makes little sense, is not 
specified formally (IPv6-over-Ethernet-over-cellular) and is cause of 
incompatibility issues; when used as part of SLAAC with privacy address 
concepts the RA was witnessed to result in huge number of addresses 
self-configured.

The INFORMATIONAL 64share is another result of using wrongly RAs on ptp 
links.

These things dont happen with ppp or DHCP which are more adapted to ptp 
links like cellular.

Alex

Le 28/07/2016 à 17:10, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> 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>; Templin,
> Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; <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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email