Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 13 May 2011 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 79D38E074D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 3fjJ9Obbkf7G for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E9EE06A6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so919180eye.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eq1eaiLL6XkGUAjVuCj0ckt6bXT1hDePnB0cuTOpXJo=; b=IeIr4+BHw4/yjJQr5RPv0OpmwpPP1eVbm5dkqh9v6tQXRG1pnaUSdQX4TlD0I7mMPm vgxa48lurq8lifUG2ysOvWDKXsDsBhSHC4J+5kRJwjdibOAqKkyaM47dE9E3/5CwcMLk aeIvxcVnD5LKoZLaVajKC6iKfjlVQBLA0ncEg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Q0Y9mLES738gJOwTrqsIyYsu13k/SoytMVH9BYOwJ5qwfggE9SoWhzLjiRQkMXUYNM OMdZvZc1uil4zex5vzdtYP45nUJhsHjl6+e1fEtWyYWcDvV2XSvUquOoWeqMk6eXW1B2 2XTjpxnmFHZjzJ9v2HCQh1PjEPjSucb0h1Gqg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.127.76 with SMTP id c52mr690614eei.57.1305297343357; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.37.143 with HTTP; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.37.143 with HTTP; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201105131337.p4DDbdao009901@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: <201105131337.p4DDbdao009901@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:35:42 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinGw5fOSAvCYikkBYA3P-wAUo7JWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba5bb8f37a263a04a3293843"
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
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 14:35:46 -0000

On May 13, 2011 6:39 AM, "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com> 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.
>

Yes. I support the new text.

Cb

> Thomas
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------