Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, 11:25 Fernando Gont, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Somebody tried to do this in DHC a few years ago, but it never got much
> > interest.
>
> Do address registration for SLAAC withing DHC WG?
>

IIRC that was tried a few years ago and did not go anywhere (I think Suresh
has more details).

We could try again, though - if it's true that the main reason that
operators want DHCPv6 is tracking, then it could be a good middle ground
between devices that want SLAAC's ability to form addresses without
permission and networks that want DHCPv6's tracking abilities.

If we do this it's important that the semantics only support tracking
existing addresses and not requesting addresses. Otherwise there will be a
conflict with the recommendations in RFC 7934 section 8 - and it would
basically be identical to IA_NA which is already a standard.

Note that 6man is working another way of getting this information to the
network, see the "multicast NA to ff02::2 whenever an address is
configured" proposal in draft-linkova-6man-grand. But if doing the same
thing in a protocol called "DHCPv6" makes it more likely to be used by
network operators, then it might be worth doing that as well.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

>