Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Markus Hanauska <hanauska@equinux.de> Tue, 31 May 2011 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <hanauska@equinux.de>
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 748A9E076F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 02:12:16 -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 97AiH50NE2Sk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 02:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.equinux.net (mail.equinux.net [194.145.236.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6007E074A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2011 02:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.equinux.net (127.0.0.1) by mail.equinux.net (MlfMTA v3.2r9) id hsidjs0171s6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:39:40 +0200 (envelope-from <hanauska@equinux.de>)
Received: from mail.muc.equinux.net ([192.168.40.207]) by mail.equinux.net (equinux Secure mail Relay) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:39:40 +0200
Received: from anaheim.muc.equinux.net (anaheim.muc.equinux.net [192.168.40.40]) by mail.muc.equinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC00221C8343; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:12:13 +0200 (CEST)
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: Markus Hanauska <hanauska@equinux.de>
In-Reply-To: <m1QR93e-0001IXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:12:13 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62797F6E-20DF-4038-A29A-1FDB0A94C678@equinux.de>
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>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mlf-Version: 7.2.1.2841
X-Mlf-UniqueId: o201105310739400080272
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 09:12:16 -0000

On 2011-05-30, at 22:27 , Philip Homburg wrote: 

> If you are really worried about this, then I guess you can also just assign
> two prefixes to a single link and use one for SLAAC and the other for DHCPv6.

Of course this is possible, but this also means, that a node not doing DHCPv6 (because it does not support it or because it is disabled on the node), will only get an address of the SLAAC prefix and thus has to go to through the network router to have its packets routed the other one. So even though both nodes are on the same physical network, all traffic has to pass through a router, instead of being exchanged directly between the two nodes. This means a lot of unnecessary load for the this router to route "local traffic".

Regards,
Markus