IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 01 February 2018 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 649A412EC0D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:49:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZnMscuaggNhp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:49:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C605124239 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:49:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id w11HnHw7064272; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:49:17 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.220]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id w11Hn74W064079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:49:07 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.238.222) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.239.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:49:06 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1347.000; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:49:06 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
CC: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
Thread-Topic: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
Thread-Index: AQHTmzqNkuf0FCoeaU2KIGEqD3UNlqOP2TwAgAAPNwD//9LbIIAAiZcA//96fWCAAI+gAP//ejswABG3fAAAEK4FMA==
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:49:06 +0000
Message-ID: <1cbc7829b62b4dc09dcbe0ab5f700344@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <91953634-9B4A-405B-AB36-FBB2079A0A40@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr23G+rz7woT1K504UEb2=sQGJd2p_CcQogLA5BbmTomZA@mail.gmail.com> <32FB86D8-235A-434F-A20C-6624FB7C3CE2@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr1oTmBOQR7YJnJV3S9_NG54sA-+phzRMwPT5qQcF1nKPA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311327410.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr04NV0+r1V1XnOo9XUu2GF_RiVPN6pqM0pJ0a68=mC9Zw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311402350.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2cTdK+kkojHa5qPOO4VyT=jW1pmJmf=uXSrdif404iQQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802010954270.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr28iU=jCBv7dy4D8gyeL=uB5hFu-YhGOKPiih9sykZ1GQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011138010.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <658076313dd5488080a596717d00c19b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011733380.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <d9091a6779aa47cc905a1fdb76480b84@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011805250.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <c3357bf41dab4c268039fa8fe463bc8f@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011832480.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011832480.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZrPjdzSXUbxlHHkn_SI4CsSJTbo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Feb 2018 17:49:22 -0000

Hi Mikael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 9:40 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
> 
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> > I am trying to understand this and failing. Is it the way the acronym
> > sounds as it rolls of your tongue? Is it a loathing of the many public
> > domain and proprietary implementations? Do you think there is something
> > flawed with the protocol messaging?
> 
> Yes. All of it.
> 
> Btw, around 2008-2012 when I started dibbling with IPv6 I ran into the
> same problem with DHCPv6 public domain server(s) implementation that was
> available didn't have RIB interaction. So yes, I could do PD, I just
> couldn't make it actually useful.
> 
> > I have also shown how IPv6ND and DHCPv6PD can be combined into a unified
> > service for all autoconfiguration needs. Even if it were to be pure
> > IPv6ND, though, there would still need to be a control messaging
> > protocol for route lifetime management that does pretty much the same
> > thing that DHCPv6 control messaging already does. So, why not just use
> > DHCPv6PD?
> 
> Because it was designed as ships in the night with routers. Because it
> generally doesn't support telling the device that "oops, your lease is up
> before its time".
> 
> If we just gave up the idea that the DHCPv6 server lives anywhere else
> than on a router (with all consequences that has), that would solve some
> parts of my issues with it. Specifying what some events on ND would
> reflect on DHCPv6 resources (operational document) would also help.

I get your frustration, but I believe DHCPv6PD works if the implementer
simply follows the specs. Today, the specs are [RFC3315] and [RFC3633],
but the two are currently being rolled into a single spec as [rfc3315bis].
The (bis) is currently in late stages of publication, so if we think there is
something wrong now is the time to comment.

> So your proposal of tunneling DHCPv6 inside RS/RA and if that means we get
> operational guidance such as "zero lifetime in the RA means deprecate all
> DHCPv6 resources you have" and similar, would help a long way.

Do we want to put some energy behind this?

Thanks - Fred

> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email