IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@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 27E52E07C9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:51:50 -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=[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 5fq-EFeq-xoY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684B6E086B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so4656977wwa.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:48:43 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=blYN3h72RPHJPzRsuKQTLxClx69Mz094fGW8ERR6deU=; b=Hu4Ya7quZnaXws4El8xlgLvp6wOxz7chmEDzBKLVXvxFoMjo/mSpV1DB5EvaSlEoxV 7/+KR9yiJLU20VxilJFRwvsfUIZBgPHEo/MsYmf/XXXnufHdvq9+MmNePzRSQ95QTLw9 MU+dyNnU/njSPs1q6Vn36kd4RdaoaIjmNxogw=
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:content-transfer-encoding; b=Y9yG9vX10IHF/We1U2Yw0ekxQkQf7kRNBzIo4wEMN94eYDbpmZE8wlPtseSzVRm0/N lYd6DriEN5IhmBXjaqg8/g/jeL4t7MfS/8UxBENZaXP4pd+VJu7npsPyuFSc91mAg2Cf dqlmgBS1QYyN/t8RF4CAkWmKeyPIA5/qiym6k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.254.82 with SMTP id g60mr2591674wes.90.1306194523415; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.73.212 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02A8E60625@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <C9F53B85.11BE93%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <BANLkTinByCkcvd6=wLE6=9h1xLX16AhPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110524072631.737ee12c@opy.nosense.org> <4DDADBFD.7000803@gmail.com> <20110524080154.513002bf@opy.nosense.org> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02A8E60625@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:48:43 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimpRUWeFDFaTcdpdRc4E3V9KsLbpA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 23 May 2011 23:51:50 -0000

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:

> Mark, as I suggested previously, DHCP is useful in cases where you need the IP addresses of hosts in a network to be predictable. I have no idea why cable systems want DHCP, but I'm saying that IN GENERAL, if hosts needs to know a priori what the address of other hosts is, SLAAC falls flat on its face.
>
> For example, a peer-to-peer network, where you don't want to rely on a DNS.

really, the simplest case is enterprise networks:
  joe's machine always gets address 1:2:3::4/128
  janes machine always gets 1.2.3::5/128

this way techsupport always has a predictable mapping for these hosts,
they can identify form log messages over time what jane vs joe did...
not have ot worry about keeping track of the vagaries of privacy
addressing and jane/joe/etc flip flopping around the subnet at
"random".

Brian's point though is fair: Drive through, nothing new to discuss
here (wrt WHY)

-chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email