Re: Multiple addresses [was Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD]

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> writes:

> Ray,

> Without going into details: how about turning this into
> draft-hunter-v6ops-something and having the debate over in v6ops?

> I think that would be useful, personally.

Actually, let me suggest something else.

Before spending a whole lot of time on this topic, is there anyone
else who thinks there is a problem here that needs solving? The last
thing we (as a group) need to do is spend time on a non-problem.

Personally, I don't see the issue here. I think the problem as stated
is a non-problem. And to be honest, this is the first time I have
heard anyone suggest what you describe is a real problem. So I wonder
whether anyone else thinks there is a problem here that needs fixing.

To the point:

> > Ray Hunter wrote:
> >> It's definitely going to become an operational FAQ, unless it is very
> >> clear whether/how a network operator can force equivalent use of
> >> DHCPv4 static address assignment for both source and destination
> >> addresses via DHCPv6 (possibly by turning off SLAAC for assignment of
> >> GUA on an interface via a flag, or via RFC3484 bis), and how to
> >> achieve this effect for all nodes on a link, without resorting to
> >> local configuration. So I may as well be the first to ask.

A fine way to deal with this problem is not advertise any prefixes in
RAs for stateless address autoconfiguration. The network operator is
in control here. They decide how/whether DHCP and/or SLAAC is used.

Why is this not sufficient?

Thomas