Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND

"Templin, Fred L" <> Tue, 14 November 2017 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47A61286C7 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:07:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HYc-iBVvQu2X for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:07:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 115B0128891 for <>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:07:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id vAE970Us015283; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:07:00 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id vAE96s2f015276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 02:06:55 -0700
Received: from (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:06:53 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:06:53 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
Thread-Index: AdNc+j0Y/64lorm6QoWdIRZ/749NYQAVCNOAAA+Bc2D//6SIgIAAb4cg
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:06:53 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9efe6e3d4fe8483196d8fe114614fefeXCH150608nwnosboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:07:04 -0000

Hi Ted,

The sensitivity I have is for aeronautical data links that have bandwidths south of
1Mbps with some being as low as 32Kbps. I realize that these are marginal even
for running IPv6 in the first place. But, if we are to do IPv6 at all we need to keep
the number of control messages to an absolute minimum. I realize this may not
be as much of a concern for the majority of modern wired-line and wireless links
that we see in the Internet but with the airplanes we don't have that luxury.

Thanks - Fred

From: Ted Lemon []
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:39 PM
To: Templin, Fred L <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND

On Nov 14, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Templin, Fred L <<>> wrote:
think I have a fair question. How can we get the functionality of IPv6ND
RA and DHCPv6 PD in a single request/response message exchange?

Right now, you can't.   The question is, why is this a problem?

We've been around on this a lot of times.   I don't see any reason to do it again.   But if you want to do it, you need to say why it's a problem that you have to do router discovery, why it's better to configure the DHCP server with router topology information, how you're going to get the right router link-local address to send, and why all of this complexity is somehow a better solution than router advertisements.

It's not good enough to just say "I'd really rather use DHCPv6 for this, can't we specify that?"