Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3608E1AD944; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:09:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kbr7ikSRXIr8; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D281AD937; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id rBCB8snX030686; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:08:54 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E729205083; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:09:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C74D20503E; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:09:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id rBCB8ouI026580; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:08:53 +0100
Message-ID: <52A99942.5030000@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:08:50 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <A583EFC3-71BB-4962-875C-4AB775D13491@delong.com> <46BE373C-D476-4D83-B014-56B77FD3D67E@nominum.com> <39280481-09C5-41ED-B79E-99DBBD329F44@employees.org> <52A8343C.3040202@gmail.com> <CAAedzxq6ym-uZJQVC7JTMgKnETpGiNt3JCmkJeGW2MVnw+sixA@mail.gmail.com> <73C046AB-7CC3-499D-B737-A9ECBD3963D4@nominum.com> <A639F21E-6004-4D23-AA50-A5D03BB26FDE@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <A639F21E-6004-4D23-AA50-A5D03BB26FDE@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:09:27 -0000

Le 12/12/2013 11:02, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>> I'm not sure I understand how's that materially different/better
>>> than a node just trying to request a PD if it wants one, and
>>> coping with the response (whatever it may be), like it does
>>> today.
>>
>> The usual concern is that a bazillion devices all requesting PDs
>> every so often adds up to a lot of traffic.   But since the
>> existing spec doesn't forbid this, we're stuck with it.
>
> then you're understanding of "usual" is different from mine. :-) as
> far as I know this can only happen in very specific circumstances
> during transition.
>
> we should be more concerned about this idea of using one protocol to
> provision another. in this case ND to configure DHCP. is that a good
> design principle to follow?

PRobably not.  Stated as such it would be too limiting (ND to help
running _just_ DHCP).

Maybe Radius as well.  The RA would just say that some means is
available to offer a delegated prefix, w/o saying which, without saying 
whether it is stateful or stateless, secure or insecure, etc.

Alex

>
> cheers, Ole
>