IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 45B29E0682 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, 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 YzWNmaLt3qXa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com (mail-px0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0C0E079C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi2 with SMTP id 2so3644406pxi.38 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=o83G5G/gyobmUIF7+REHCxk7NHnLvyKElxOiirDq3/8=; b=TS4/rNBY5Hp1BVhp6JUdSFNZb4fSYVdNeWb79DM9x2/G0hZdcQ6i9WEdUdXFdattIs Rog9Mt0bcY8vsnQh6Ho3hAvOlinqfS5SmiDOyfziQEh42+aYSyo++/Focb3kZNhxxXeA gE2CvXMBHtlZIQHwlI1rhYDBHUZVHb/RWUlzk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=C/PFcDNvsfpfsMDF4IUMLu4wPPxDoIVdnjjKrwpUq0XsMwbB0Fxj44WgTq3f914dOa RCW1TazgUseeRkeRFCUr1opLy/jGdi9zZWF5QwPfOUOFH/0Qq0v08DJsbeO7f2GSlmOP hnPQlX1SPUVmKdnNj1sIxwd2dhzkZA68o7Qu8=
Received: by 10.68.39.74 with SMTP id n10mr2383992pbk.242.1306188804351; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i7sm4585832pbs.20.2011.05.23.15.13.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 23 May 2011 15:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DDADBFD.7000803@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:13:17 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
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>
In-Reply-To: <20110524072631.737ee12c@opy.nosense.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.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 22:13:25 -0000

Mark,

On 2011-05-24 09:56, Mark Smith wrote:
...
> I'm not particularly pro-SLAAC, however I sit back and wonder what is
> missing from it that makes DHCP essential? 

To be blunt, that conversation isn't worth having. SLAAC is clearly
essential for isolated or bootstrapping networks to self-configure.
DHCP is clearly viewed as essential by many network managers. EOM.

...

>> (Hmm, maybe I should just write such a spec now, given the M&O bit
>> definitions are in the twilight zone anyway... Discussion of what to
>> do with them was effectively removed from the last revisions of the
>> SLAAC documents, so now there is no clear guidance on how to process
>> them. The IETF at its finest...)
>>
> 
> I'm a bit confused, I find this text in RFC4862 quite clear as to what
> to do -

It doesn't specify startup defaults and the like. RFC 5887, Section 5.1.1,
bottom of page 12, discusses this.

If you're concerned about SLAAC/DHCPv6 conflict resolution, see
draft-liu-ipv6-renum-conflicts (and join the renum@ietf.org list).

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email