Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 17:17 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 C85F71AE1D6; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:17:16 -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 nN_BCXFfUQRY; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:17:14 -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 F02571AE1C0; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:17:13 -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 rBAHH8hl027036; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:17:08 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B68CC204921; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:17:24 +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 A6B2D2042C3; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:17:24 +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 rBAHH1H1016405; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:17:08 +0100
Message-ID: <52A74C8D.3050302@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:17:01 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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>
In-Reply-To: <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:17:17 -0000

Le 10/12/2013 12:08, Sander Steffann a écrit :
> Hi Mikael,
>
> Op 10 dec. 2013, om 08:10 heeft Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> het volgende geschreven:
>
>>  From RFC4861:
>>
>> M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
>>                      set, it indicates that addresses are available via
>>                      Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].
>>
>> I interpret this as M=1 means addresses are available via DHCPv6, that means IA_NA and/or IA_PD, one or both might be available. I don't really understand why you do not. What do you think the M flag means? Reading the above text seems to indicate that you think it has something to do with managing the CPE?
>
> As far as I know the M flag is linked only to IA_NA. As far as I can see IA_PD is not linked to the M flag at all.

The IA_PD should be linked to a requirement that has to do more with
Routers at the Edge in general, and just in particular to CPE.

Any Router at the Edge that needs to self-configure has no cleaner[*]
alternative to using DHCP-PD, in addition to DHCP and/or SLAAC for address.

Examples of Routers at the Edge: CPE, homenet Routers, smartphone
hotspots, Mobile Routers as deployed in e.g. vehicles, road-side units,
etc. All could benefit from IA_PD.

This requirement is surprisingly present in the IPv6 cellular hosts RFC
(although this a Router), and surprisingly absent from the IPv6 Node
Requirements RFC (although a Node could be a Host or a Router sometimes).

Alex
[*]: for some value for 'clean'.
Alternatives include 64share, IPv6NAT, NPT, ND-PD, NAT64, 6to4,
IPv6transition...

>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>