Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@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 DFCC0E0844 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:50:09 -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 BdUurHcQRddS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192B7E0879 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so5271440wyb.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=thDspRj3I6ovIFFz6YpdpeYvetjNYohniovKl+s/6s0=; b=f/ZDfBCsmUjKwM6w6/Trck2YM5ZISamgpXEh2GYwrNE/w6ThirXyTk4Wn61FczyqLe 4gDqmBSGSl4aBzD9+GRuimkVXWvE4NoMG7IwdqWBxgx6nKRyB9atPphJc/vRWNQ1WnXN XdpCry9xfKXrlPfmlfIsLJ3/mAjXQUpnhgg+Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=g0z2TSkM/r3CNNjea+VMZn/+GKjqqTCeGXSAS53oB1jhbryF9oO+usYAHUoai7zLzZ ilu0PvfC9UkFENHKq1XieyRI4ocU7NhimlV7FSVOjkZZonmZWpFk781rKmRt+tEUTfvU t2OL2fy9hkBxxKAx4XSXgw/jKxYs8b77AJC3U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.239.73 with SMTP id b51mr2710808wer.60.1306194267102; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.73.212 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201105232111.p4NLBScJ013180@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
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>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:44:27 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=uTPff5Xgb=iCQP+w+x_irriNagQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "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 23:50:10 -0000

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> one gotcha with 'dhcp only' is perhaps folks mean: "slaac to signal v6
>> is on-net, but require full config from a dhcpv6 server".
>> How does a host know that v6 is available otherwise? (this may be why
>> someone said "you don't really want to do that..')
>
> Well, if I could go back in time, I would never have defined the M&O
> bits at all.
>
> Just say that at startup time, invoke SLAAC & DHCPv6 both. Then use
> whatever is available. That would have been simple and
> predictable. (And avoided 10GB of mailing list discussion!)
>
> (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...)

ok, so ... as a thought experiment, in v4 you wake up, decide you have
no address and are supposed to dhcp for that..
in v6, you wake up decide you have no address (and don't know if v4/v6
are available)... if you are configured for v6 dhcp, you make that
request and get all the 'right' data.

Essentially, spec dhcpv6 host actions to be the same as v4?

> Thomas
>