IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 0C66DE07EA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 48UZyOv8IlLf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (e5.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63709E0804 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p4NNLjCa018782 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 19:21:45 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p4NNmsAv1302716 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 19:48:54 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p4NNmspe015155 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 20:48:54 -0300
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-221-88.mts.ibm.com [9.65.221.88]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p4NNmrco015140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 May 2011 20:48:54 -0300
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p4NNmqHJ015491; Mon, 23 May 2011 19:48:53 -0400
Message-Id: <201105232348.p4NNmqHJ015491@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
In-reply-to: <BANLkTi=uTPff5Xgb=iCQP+w+x_irriNagQ@mail.gmail.com>
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> <BANLkTi=uTPff5Xgb=iCQP+w+x_irriNagQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> message dated "Mon, 23 May 2011 19:44:27 -0400."
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:48:52 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
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 23:51:51 -0000

> ok, so ... as a thought experiment, in v4 you wake up, decide you have
> no address and are supposed to dhcp for that..
> in v6, you wake up decide you have no address (and don't know if v4/v6
> are available)... if you are configured for v6 dhcp, you make that
> request and get all the 'right' data.

> Essentially, spec dhcpv6 host actions to be the same as v4?

yes.

Have DHCPv6 and SLAAC run independently. If you get stuff via one or
the other or both, just use them.

The mistake of the M&O bits was that you needed an RA to tell you to
use DHCP. But if the bits weren't set right, or something, you
wouldn't run DHCP in cases where you should have. Just decouple the
two protocols completely.

The one downside is that you run DHCP even if there are no DHCP
servers. In some environments, that is extra traffic the operator
might not want. I recall many long threads about how the cost of those
extra DHCP pacekts on a wireless network were unacceptable...

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email