Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

John...
On May 13, 2011, at 12:19 PM 5/13/11, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> In general, I support Thomas' text, but I still think some clarification is needed:
> 
>> 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>
> 
> Should we give some guidance on what to do if both mechanisms are available
> on a network, the methods give contradictory information? I don't think it is
> enough to say that both SHOULD be supported, without giving additional
> clarification on what it means when both are supported.

I think the IETF has been pretty good about keeping the information from the two sources independent.  Regarding address assignment specifically, what contradictory information might be provided?  I can imagine a node might get one address from SLAAC and another from DHCPv6, but that's an acceptable configuration.  DHCPv6 doesn't provide prefix information, so no conflicts there.  I don't think there's an issue if DHCPv6 assigns an address that's not in a prefix advertised in an RA.

- Ralph

> 
> John
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------