IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 23 February 2016 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073E51B2D2B; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:34:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 V6MZpIwPD7H5; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9398C1B2D0A; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.107] (unknown [181.165.125.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C04980DBB; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:34:46 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <20160201142413.30288.23248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr11tEDEPXkUWj4g_-wL=AgYRu7LYrOkgobEMtwOW4CpEA@mail.gmail.com> <003001d1687a$926ab2e0$b74018a0$@huitema.net> <56C3161F.3070301@innovationslab.net> <CAKD1Yr15EYQdS3XR4zenqmpBn2K2Zue2a+mMz1m+Vw54ou7zZQ@mail.gmail.com> <56CB891E.6060902@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3MdjMrMMW+Mv2n_Ls+94Ry23e8Y_LCXhH1t4nF9Rjm4w@mail.gmail.com> <56CBA305.1050400@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3fA4+vdfUbxxxVvbpy8JRHC8TuKqXHHv6F9HBj2rL=fA@mail.gmail.com> <019301d16e1d$979ed1d0$c6dc7570$@huitema.net> <56CC3D31.6000403@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0Q6ge2qOFJ1o90mwdLr3mYEQF6uiy6=xUEgpLr-0cC_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56CC5FDB.5020108@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:34:19 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0Q6ge2qOFJ1o90mwdLr3mYEQF6uiy6=xUEgpLr-0cC_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fo5JiRw4vyqsLCnpa6LL_EZFzAk>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile@ietf.org, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:34:55 -0000

On 02/23/2016 09:47 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> 
>     That's actually the contrary of what the specs say today: if M=1 you do
>     DHCPv6, not SLAAC.
> 
> 
> I don't see any statement in 4861 that says that. Per 4861, M=1 means
> "DHCPv6 is available", not "nodes should do DHCPv6". Relevant text:
> 
>       M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
>                      set, it indicates that addresses are available via
>                      Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].

This is the first one I found:

   Moreover, information
   may also be obtained through other dynamic means like DHCPv6.  Hosts
   accept the union of all received information; the receipt of a Router
   Advertisement MUST NOT invalidate all information received in a
   previous advertisement or from another source.

If you want, take this as a "may". But your text says SHOULD NOT, and
may != SHOULD NOT.

Besides, what if say, there's different address information available
via RA vs DHCPv6? --the text I cited above suggests that you accept the
union, but you suggest that you accept only the info provided by the RAs.

Again, I don't disagree (per se) with the proposal to do SLAAC rather
than DHCPv6 . But, I just think the behavior being suggested differs
from what we currently have -- hence the suggested "Update".

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email