IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Wed, 12 December 2012 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 C5F7021E80F4; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:06:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GcJkXeHKusNL; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E873921E80F7; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:06:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCJ6JlQ021483; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:06:19 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk qBCJ6JlQ021483
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1355339180; bh=zxhpGw/XI7HUUhaT6ABw58VT+AM=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=iDTVO0iSZtlKCocZ+8lONiNZjSkK2vEgx+xPA3xe8giuuGV7g44sOyGH5NCmxlC6I p2zNTMiKWr4pVsRiiP0sHzzuhqkBn2KubK+3YPx8gBVoU9+4aZlPM50DLQS7i3Z/yg F6oxmvrGEtUcqAnEuWtOA/+uERR47FSfIAwQq4t4=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id oBBJ6J0430653669Qz ret-id none; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:06:20 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCJ4wqk017904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:04:59 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_291E5DFF-E717-4EE1-90A0-B88052B5B3D5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <51B09765-C765-45D5-8AA6-D24ADB72D558@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:04:58 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|ccc9de4820ceea387b759cccb31f2fa6oBBJ6J03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|808EE39B-C43F-42E4-94DA-216655DBB16E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239FCFF2E@szxeml545-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CD38B68B-DA3B-477E-8E19-99F3CD5808BE@employees.org> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239FD3DDE@szxeml545-mbs.china.huawei.com> <A3F12423-A919-4FFE-9B3F-76968BAFC044@employees.org> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239FD3FF0@szxeml545-mbs.china.huawei.com> <0181F4E0-D1FC-42B9-8C80-8B57FCF88CF5@employees.org> <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757A218F7D2B@szxeml539-mbs.china.huawei.com> <51B09765-C765-45D5-8AA6-D24ADB72D558@employees.org> <808EE39B-C43F-42E4-94DA-216655DBB16E@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=oBBJ6J043065366900; tid=oBBJ6J0430653669Qz; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: qBCJ6JlQ021483
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org> WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:06:30 -0000

On 12 Dec 2012, at 18:48, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about.
>> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC.
>> 
>> Could you elaborate your viewpoints?
> 
> the PIO option in RA has several functions.
> 
> 1) with the A-flag on, it is used by SLAAC.
> 2) with the L-flag on, it is used for onlink determination (prefix discovery).
> 
> "when there is no SLAAC" does that mean?
> - there is no RA
> - there is an empty RA (no PIO)
> - the PIO has A-flag off
> 
> if I understand your draft correctly, you want a DHCPv6 alternative to the RA PIO option.
> generally we try to avoid duplicate mechanisms, so could you please give a use case?

And so we end up back at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00
and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg09715.html

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email