Re: Node Requirements: Revised text for DHCP on routers

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Sun, 29 May 2011 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 8735BE0745 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.792
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.193, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 FwDFlvkdnPYa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECCDE0655 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24203 invoked by uid 399); 29 May 2011 19:36:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?65.241.43.5?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@65.241.43.5) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 29 May 2011 19:36:50 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 65.241.43.5
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <4DE2A04B.5090400@dougbarton.us>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 12:36:43 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Revised text for DHCP on routers
References: <201105271751.p4RHpBdo007827@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <201105271751.p4RHpBdo007827@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:37:01 -0000

I think this is much better, and I would not object to the text as is 
(modulo Ralph's suggestions). I would like to make a couple of 
suggestions of my own for the middle two paragraphs that you should feel 
free to ignore. :)

On 5/27/2011 10:51 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Going through this thread, here is some proposed text. I've concluded
> that whether to require DHC and/or relay agents is much more nuances
> than a simple SHOULD/MAY/MUST.
>
> How about the following proposed wording:
>
>     12.3.  Stateful Address Autoconfiguration (DHCPv6) - RFC 3315
>
>     A single DHCP server ([RFC3315] or[RFC4862]) can provide
>     configuration information to devices directly attached to a shared
>     link, as well as to devices located elsewhere within a site.
>     Communication between a client and a DHCP server located on different
>     links requires the use of DHCP relay agents on routers.

In simple deployments with a single router there is no need for a relay 
agent. A DHCP server embedded within the router is a common deployment 
scenario (e.g., [RFC6204]).

In more complex deployment scenarios, such as within enterprise or 
service provider networks, use of DHCP may be more involved. For example 
configuration of relay agents, multiple DHCP servers, etc. In such 
environments the DHCP server might be run on a separate system, rather 
than as part of a router.




-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/