Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 13 May 2011 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F241CE07B9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 08:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 QNw0nWGm-EHG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 08:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62853E077C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 08:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so1667254pwi.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 08:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=dHsejp3haQuu5nPikgEY3IUL5gZDf4oTXMzKaCJvT00=; b=spID5ynOxJ3IOEiXDa05TA4zT9MdhiDGdxFAP2ezz6NzC2HengeV8+NYhdkADcHnV9 LCXHUKDjd7k0Q8fJTuaOl6XYUpxnRCAlkKUKZsVXfbMpqk1Agcgn1L1nqOt285WMtoWa gRqyvyHrbbCVFV5WWO2HD5bUJtzBe1zm+oNbM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=TfxsyOmjzBT9jg2QANfUxIPbk9Okdnzx9iJ8UgSoiAapZzcsZ+Bq1Q1tnGkocn4K9e LeAe1LgdUjlkIVLcG4u/N01DEXMHxihJ8CfGZU/pzMbR+J2iNK/TLUj5GK66NrwVeW9r 8RFJHPHyQLi0nF0hna0MjLe8XmZSZkU485MkI=
Received: by 10.143.136.1 with SMTP id o1mr900789wfn.188.1305302153063; Fri, 13 May 2011 08:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.37] (c-24-130-225-13.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.225.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w14sm2197737wfh.20.2011.05.13.08.55.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 May 2011 08:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201105131337.p4DDbdao009901@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:55:48 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4462F666-D0FD-45C1-AE71-0CD70580C110@gmail.com>
References: <201105131337.p4DDbdao009901@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:55:54 -0000

Thomas,

On May 13, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Per a previous thread, there are indications that the WG may now be
> willing to recommend that DHCPv6 be a SHOULD for all hosts. This is
> based on the following rationale:
> 
> Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> I personally would support having DHCP be a SHOULD rather than a
>> MAY. The justification in my mind is that if you want the network
>> operator to have the choice of whether they want to use  Stateless
>> addrconf OR DHCP, they only have that choice of devices widely
>> implement both.
> 
> This was supported by some others, particularly now that it is clear
> there are more implementations of DHCPv6, e.g.:
> 
> Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> While my personal view is that DHCPv6 won't be used for host
>> configuration in cable/DSL deployments (except for provisioning the
>> prefix to the home router), it appears that DHCPv6 is being widely
>> implemented in host OS's because it is needed some environments.
>> There are enough variations in deployment models that a host
>> developer will need to support both.
> 
>> Based on this, I think a SHOULD is OK. 
> 
> Let me propose the following change be made to the node requirements
> document:
> 
> OLD/Current:
> 
>   DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses.  In general, a
>   network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router
>   Advertisements, DHCP or both.  At the present time, the configuration
>   of addresses via stateless autoconfiguration is more widely
>   implemented in hosts than address configuration via DHCP.  However,
>   some environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the
>   configuration of addresses via RAs.  Implementations should be aware
>   of what operating environment their devices will be deployed.  Hosts
>   MAY implement address configuration via DHCP.
> 
> New:
> 
>      	<t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain and
> 	configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the
> 	configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements,
> 	DHCPv6 or both.  Some operators have indicated that they do
> 	not intend to support stateless address autoconfiguration on
> 	their networks and will require all address assignments be
> 	made through DHCPv6. On such networks, devices that support
> 	only stateless address autoconfiguration will be unable to
> 	automatically configure addresses. Consequently all hosts
> 	SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCP.</t>
> 
> 
> Is this acceptable?
> 
> Please respond yes or no. Given the WG's previous hesitation to having
> DHCPv6 be a SHOULD, it is important that we get a clear indication of
> whether or not the WG supports this change.

While I support changing the requirement to a SHOULD, I would prefer the text to be something like:

     	<t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain and
	configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the
	configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements,
	DHCPv6 or both.   There will be a wide range of IPv6 deployment models
        and differences in address assignment requirements.  Consequently all hosts
	SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCP.</t>

It's not just about what some operators may or may not do.  For example enterprises, governments, etc. will also have specific requirements.

Bob