Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 July 2016 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 0AD8312D8A0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 J9MnQEB-k-K9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A1212D0B5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f6so170553146ith.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dZSzoHzbOsWIvKfyR0eUCCm7ax2JPh4QK28918AY9iI=; b=aLPCjD46TSeOLFAKBOA0UHTmhPeMM2iFacxEaR3PouxGVauREyjDUlb21hd7UomPcx NnL7NIjPMUT1RantqMZjb3F7qC/CY459n6hkzoBEzKRq7pS0gNR+QLDVylkA2vfPQHAY IjQqLTtMiJAhUdMAJPGVSog2yYDi6//ZVQPsax/8gHQ3XDjNEAXBQdvgAMyi/QyWfwkf GlDd69CPQU31l0/OTWzPpPmDF6tq07FZuzjjy2OnMCY2Zhnxzv8DgWzjPnXKYqAqq8oa 9dZoLbYHKZQcKHBAqadUxNPAdbAbOw4eO+OyFyMDC1HEnzFV5fbh/deHucCEc6cysLZK 7KTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dZSzoHzbOsWIvKfyR0eUCCm7ax2JPh4QK28918AY9iI=; b=hgr28t1cuewxWivx4UaEDVDsYbC5pgn5HPKEh9z5jQIreRGiYSL+epT7rHFX5TqEHF 5AAd7Ca/zuyot7dTIO4+5NMP5bbuBCrrIsOf92WCsmuW4fJUFMK36p8WofyLa6/KKUXL Kh3toL94daUD7gGTikgCW63h9DsnjUDPucEbOm5uFszigNDa/0xiji6aLLzVC+DiF0SA qmXym/rdS21izSd6bnlxgNxVvXqFz4vfE4v6YXZBr42h/yD30U3MhsrgjcfrXF2Y4iOQ A2JGO3AJE/BY2wQm6UTe/yrK2wmZxGowCMldSiBmAd59vUoiWVOEbDWbx24KjIaU9sWQ T0ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI1DLehYtQOJjLTX86wIpmwb8q6KG4SMWxlCpGnN86jMB2Gm4v+a9GSHwk0Sg9f819VW5ZbFAQidFsqfAAZ
X-Received: by 10.36.47.6 with SMTP id j6mr96040705itj.82.1469719453611; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.26.72 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f72eede6-83b8-80bb-573c-17580d0e02a5@gmail.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> <f72eede6-83b8-80bb-573c-17580d0e02a5@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:23:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr23QkpXpoZa1pxzZz-HTqQQDBS0k=jyvvssivjQqmraZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144130cf433870538b3b9d1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/SWQaiv0kCNZWA4nn3krGLrgbDYo>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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 15:24:21 -0000

Alexandre, that doesn't make sense. The only specified mechanism for IPv6
on 3GPP links is RAs.

There is no Ethernet on cellular links, where did you get that from?

The fact that the host can configure lots of addresses is a feature, not a
bug. It makes useful features like /64 sharing possible.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>om>; Templin,
>> Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; <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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>