IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 20:58 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 59C6EE06BC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:58:03 -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 SGhuVtAFPUdM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805B3E069A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so4581203wwa.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:58:01 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NRF4nv/pp88xpyydv1WXcDW91dWvHLTKWR9BUl73/fk=; b=t4KmYOTro2xy2fc9SH9bbDu+//mIWmI/1mKXbkeSsAFAbsVyS7a07qe1aYbyZtS6UD p09TEUgOfFDix3P+pUljrmem4AK3MrUQYaXkAurkczyZDHVGPo79bElz9bKlEfs2Gj/w C7cTrvx3rJ8ZFaVPjFdl40LOkZQvORYTrm36w=
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:content-transfer-encoding; b=FBEgNh3fUwWMK3eg9nO2bK6Z8Y9fjk/4O8nV6sKKLKabnXTQ9988irmsQLIsKjz91Z knt7p9W8D0MUfp1op3Tu5SxhBdXNe6JEu2ejDqaT0y+0fEP3YDykOYgkDPmJ0caqk2iJ N0B5Y/NY+/RAJaRUReiftQczKqgPU2j6XnwPM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.144.166 with SMTP id n38mr2623866wej.75.1306184281397; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.73.212 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53E999C4-E50D-49C9-9B02-8AD7B5641905@gmail.com>
References: <C9F53B85.11BE93%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <201105232010.p4NKAV9X012654@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <53E999C4-E50D-49C9-9B02-8AD7B5641905@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:58:00 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinByCkcvd6=wLE6=9h1xLX16AhPVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@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 20:58:03 -0000

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas - (hoping to fan the discussion) I think operators have expressed the desire to operate networks in DHCP-only mode, and the response has been "No, you don't really want to operate your networks that way".
>

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..')

-chris

> If operators came forward again with a strong desire to operate networks using only DHCP, and no other technical reason, would they get a different answer today?
>
> - Ralph
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 4:10 PM 5/23/11, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
>>> Is the intention for the new text to relax the requirement for
>>> auto-configuration?
>>
>> No. SLAAC remains a MUST. DHCPv6 though is now a SHOULD.
>>
>> For one thing, DHCP doesn't have an option configure on-link prefixes,
>> so we still need SLAAC.
>>
>> What we should have done oh-so-long-ago is ensure that you could
>> configure/operate a network with just DHCP (and no SLAAC at all) and
>> vice versa, and than made both a MUST on hosts.  That way, operators
>> truly have the choice as to which to use and everything would just
>> work.
>>
>> Thomas
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email