Re: [dhcwg] MTU option for DHCPv6?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 28 July 2016 15:30 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 E417A12D7E4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:30:44 -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 XlqhsLScxEPi for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (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 4F91112D7CF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id u186so171061436ita.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:30:43 -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=6L7/xbTehCRs9co/XVdvV7rWgnuOs+QS28LuqoGsb74=; b=ItCrJZD16+PANorhyrHnHeLeqHVRCBFOo4SlJE1GijVEHbonoP0npwukFWQFL54S4L rJAQBovAGr4jhLIMIHcs/KL236FCD/dBVRvMhbPSjuBOET5MVIeWZ1M0Y7itQdE3/GOn jFqjpd/PCXYzMg6q1kjoZmqNo4Ozm4Agp/YsXHYTG2jX2+z/D3onzXc+Jg6hdADODsuC o993UoEH+4UWRQ1tZ/DmBars8P6juqfIo1ke1bDvR4tUlqipFeVV1ETJGiOIh37wmyKa fw6OkXJAKBkErTP0W4BfIVnKkBS03WKAdgehJxlfI951iaR/9zBcIv/VTZFzLOadCrO6 sE4A==
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=6L7/xbTehCRs9co/XVdvV7rWgnuOs+QS28LuqoGsb74=; b=kYMjuwEm01DY5zqksfoEkalgdNw1Dmkdf/2Sq9QWcsB5wa/c2YvTL2Xp+rqXtOjIib ayZ63xdmiJNjtxvB72RmBxEmrbCkcCZCi1Y0YXqMZu1qaqfOI50Z6o04NqkWrcs7pl8A m5/2sKMNRSR+KUKyfrTwbtlWiXg2XuTPj1m+FXw3KweN/BsprX5OUw4WdvZRQzsbxBPh sKqma2JpMhdyEn1zufKpD7qhXaqXdewvv+ZhhepcOizUIVjsxYXrKAyJ1bzdKyO0jeAu 60ZiebJgYFkaHqYyCUEJHYNrlrLmYdmW7tCEFGNy9grRYAqfIEu/CyffFJQ4mOu68tZM 8D0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoout02bhGcK+4sIz+rhWf8ywDJot00FjpIHl494RLvJpOGYXjBoQ5y2jDP+NdyUHOiEHWWUmWKSMbRbdD8tUZ
X-Received: by 10.36.16.197 with SMTP id 188mr40350215ity.88.1469719842170; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.26.72 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4725f6ba7bbf4b9ab5c4c23a04f41518@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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:30:22 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2nrcisr2bXSxqjZCiFEjdcUiFzYZKqjiW+fa1uepM7gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144405a1d511b0538b3d1be
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/UwWAK8iX5wls1nB06xfwP9WaOLY>
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:30:45 -0000

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Templin, Fred L <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.