IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@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 97AD6E0833 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:21:22 -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 pUDiUoIQoGmx for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BF3E069A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so5270236vxg.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=+K38kdb0EDweCXSBw6O/HKnB9h4oZOlQa45ClZ/PQeM=; b=gteOWRkQoPRf/NwedBAKw6M9NFenrmOnnfPqa6XcNQ2j1mvahPqjnvU8aNusGvm88/ rMdIeoMtafM+snyFASatLSNry3JUPof1VkooS8WQOy1sWfXqxG4sJUuoJJikDJ57iuSG ARvOxurKp9MjBRi5In/C28oRwHgngRKNlHK/E=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=bgAcAzF+V1GydcedbOX2MTFBhXxIXb4f9eVH9ubqLL3kXzCMmPqMiBTwVuNbKgJs5d Ugox1pWzl0Cu/e+0SXmWKCPtIc74Dd9btekBB646Oun8aSkIUyRoAMc0NGNp9DqDo7ou 2JOJkK2IyxVIXRvvGJ/TLZjrNLKMrHBZOfPdc=
Received: by 10.52.100.70 with SMTP id ew6mr3583262vdb.95.1306182081274; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [161.44.65.177] ([161.44.65.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dq2sm1415036vdc.19.2011.05.23.13.21.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 23 May 2011 13:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201105232010.p4NKAV9X012654@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:21:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53E999C4-E50D-49C9-9B02-8AD7B5641905@gmail.com>
References: <C9F53B85.11BE93%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <201105232010.p4NKAV9X012654@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "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 20:21:22 -0000

Thomas - (hoping to fan the discussion) I think operators have expressed the desire to operate networks in DHCP-only mode, and the response has been "No, you don't really want to operate your networks that way".

If operators came forward again with a strong desire to operate networks using only DHCP, and no other technical reason, would they get a different answer today?

- Ralph

On May 23, 2011, at 4:10 PM 5/23/11, Thomas Narten wrote:

>> Is the intention for the new text to relax the requirement for
>> auto-configuration?
> 
> No. SLAAC remains a MUST. DHCPv6 though is now a SHOULD.
> 
> For one thing, DHCP doesn't have an option configure on-link prefixes,
> so we still need SLAAC.
> 
> What we should have done oh-so-long-ago is ensure that you could
> configure/operate a network with just DHCP (and no SLAAC at all) and
> vice versa, and than made both a MUST on hosts.  That way, operators
> truly have the choice as to which to use and everything would just
> work.
> 
> Thomas
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email