Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 17:53 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 B42AA12D855 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:53:49 -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_H3=-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 FpeQoUyMKBbL for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:53:47 -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 0624712D7D9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:53:35 -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 u79HrZEL027507; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:53:35 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-05-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.137.100.58]) by ewa-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id u79HrTRY027450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:53:29 -0700
Received: from XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:6450::8989:6450) by XCH15-05-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8989:643a::8989:643a) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:53:28 -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; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:53:28 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?
Thread-Index: AdHoQoGGAMbjaqWBR9aaxP1yToT6sgAB2X5AAABnFgAAJTbdGQAATchgAA+CkwACUZJJwA==
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:53:27 +0000
Message-ID: <3ae2225e8cc84eb99ca750a09e7386e4@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> <4725f6ba7bbf4b9ab5c4c23a04f41518@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr2nrcisr2bXSxqjZCiFEjdcUiFzYZKqjiW+fa1uepM7gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2nrcisr2bXSxqjZCiFEjdcUiFzYZKqjiW+fa1uepM7gw@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_3ae2225e8cc84eb99ca750a09e7386e4XCH150505nwnosboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Mw7_gIvaVNGQmjW2no5e-4CwBCs>
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
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: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 17:53:50 -0000

Hi,

More on this thread from a couple of weeks ago:


Ø  As for security, basic DHCPv6 doesn't usually provide security either. And if the link is wireless, I would hope it does encryption already?

Here, I was referring to DHCPv6 authentication either using the “old method” in
RFC3315 or the “new method” in ‘draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6’.

DHCPv6 authentication may be necessary on links that do not support link-layer
and/or physical security and even for secured links DHCPv6 authentication may
still be necessary to defeat “insider attacks”.

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


From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:30 AM
To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>om>; otroan@employees.org; Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>om>; <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:

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.

What does this link look like? Is it a point-to-point link? If so, then RAs are equivalent to DHCPv6 because they are effectively unicasted to a single client. As for security, basic DHCPv6 doesn't usually provide security either. And if the link is wireless, I would hope it does encryption already?


Finally, RA does not have the back-end database management capabilities that are built into common public domain DHCPv6 implementations.
It's perfectly possible to do this with RAs. The Framed-IPv6-prefix option was defined in 2001. When I looked at it as far back as 2010, common implementations (e.g., Juniper) were perfectly capable of create dynamic VLANs and configure RA parameters based on radius attributes.