Re: Comments on draft-yourtchenko-colitti-nd-reduce-multicast

and just to be clear:
me engaging in this debate with regards to ND register vs DHCP should in no way be interpreted that I agree that the solution to the problem (we're still working on defining), is a stateful ND table. ;-)

cheers,
Ole without hats.

On 21 Feb 2014, at 16:39 , Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> Eric,
> 
>> DHCP won't work without changes which would be a lot bigger that anything
>> envisioned for ND address registration.
> 
> can you elaborate?
> 
>> DHCP does not maintain link-locals. That would be a major change to fix
>> that, including on hosts, since address requests are responded in unicast.
> 
> do we need to care about link-locals? are they part of the problem we need to solve?
> 
>> DHCP does not maintain <IP, MAC> binding. It does not have the MAC (not to
>> confuse with DUID).
> 
> true, but an onlink DHCP server or snooping relay could do an address discovery request to populate the ND table.
> 
>> DHCP is not on the forwarding path where we need the information quickly
> 
> what do you mean by that? if the function is on the first-hop router, then that's a deployment choice.
> ND register also needs to solve how to deal with multiple routers. I believe -05 proposes that the host maintains the state in all on-link routers, but that has quite a few implications too.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Comments on draft-yourtchenko-colitti-nd-reduce-multicast

Attachment: signature.asc