Re: [v6ops] Combining IPv6 ND and DHCPv6 into a single, unified function

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 22 November 2017 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11E912946A; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:53:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lOJBay1e9242; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:53:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01580129467; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B039F20008; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:55:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3F882B25; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:53:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "dhcwg\" <>, "v6ops\" <>, "6man\" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Combining IPv6 ND and DHCPv6 into a single, unified function
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:53:50 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:53:54 -0000

My understanding is that Fred Templin essentially wants to carry DHCP
(configuration) options in ND/RA.

I think that they are most often stateless (i.e. not addresses at all or
other resources).

I've heard the IPv4 PPP folks lament that they should have just had an IPCP
option to carry DHCPv4 options, and indeed that's why we have almost no IP6CP
options, as it's all done by ND and DHCPv6.

{Having implemented a DHCPv6 server just to serve PPP links, it really feels
dumb.  Yes, the management is all centralized, but it's centralized via
RADIUS, not via DHCP relays. }

So I suggest that Fred should go ahead with his document as Experimental,
with our blessing, and an obligation to report on how well it works in
his situation.   Given the timescales that I think his industry works at, he
might need more time than an average Experimental code allocation.
He would have to deal how/if/when all experimental systems would be withdrawn
should the experiment be unsuccessful, I think.

I guess he could use ND codes 253/254, but I think an assignment would not
kill here.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-