IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 31 May 2011 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 E0A3FE080B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Xhf5k2Np7dib for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 04:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CF8E07C6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2011 04:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 49C529C; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:45:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489EA9A; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:45:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:45:43 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
In-Reply-To: <m1QRNIi-0001gzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105311342050.13754@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <C9F53B85.11BE93%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <201105232010.p4NKAV9X012654@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <53E999C4-E50D-49C9-9B02-8AD7B5641905@gmail.com> <BANLkTinByCkcvd6=wLE6=9h1xLX16AhPVQ@mail.gmail.com> <201105232111.p4NLBScJ013180@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <20110524072631.737ee12c@opy.nosense.org> <3044C560-F46C-477A-BD87-DF252F689FAB@equinux.de> <m1QR93e-0001IXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <62797F6E-20DF-4038-A29A-1FDB0A94C678@equinux.de> <m1QRL7I-0001h2C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105311225350.13754@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1QRMNF-0001ipC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105311247370.13754@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1QRNIi-0001gzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
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: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:45:47 -0000

On Tue, 31 May 2011, Philip Homburg wrote:

> I have no idea why you want hosts on the same vlan and then use L2 
> filtering to prevent them from communicating directly. But yes, if the 
> router would then start sending redirects, it would create a mess.

This has been a common deployment scenario for ETTH for the past 10 years.

On IPv4, this was done by means of local-proxy-arp by the gateway, which 
is suboptimal for other reasons.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email