IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] RA vs DHCPv6 config (was Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6105F11E8265 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6svwRva1EPB for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C425411E8263 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so6232665vcb.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7huDtf9cKlgSMA34gE2MDdKEsaxWjpmvk9H9hiHn+18=; b=q3hDQ8KJQE7/xUHRXRNpDw0ZSCLoCA/LBAOJo7TO18PDv6nhn/tNLsca4S4rEkJ6bj yFlbjrRmZZwv31BcJJbZh0GuvL1t9E69lWB12eowds7usePaGjb8pUINX3RJ+cus6ZtD 4rsttNSPg8POMi/Ocrm2/x2K5/abfxIUmCptA=
Received: by 10.220.148.202 with SMTP id q10mr2626854vcv.240.1320093720212; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id el1sm11469824vdc.13.2011.10.31.13.41.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EAF07FD.3090202@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:41:33 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <4EAAA9FE.9030600@innovationslab.net> <CAD06408.17DC0D%wbeebee@cisco.com>, <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3032A71C3@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <COL118-W380DB46BD2C899FA745788B1D30@phx.gbl> <4EAD833E.1020204@gmail.com> <A28D1C9D-0227-48E8-A9B0-EDB769AFD5AA@nominum.com>, <4EADB4F5.3030804@gmail.com> <091A2980-DC47-403E-BDF9-96EC955815C5@nominum.com>, <4EAE811A.1030005@gmail.com> <D3DB4F64-0A42-4346-9D26-52C7629F1A03@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3DB4F64-0A42-4346-9D26-52C7629F1A03@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] RA vs DHCPv6 config (was Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option)
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:42:01 -0000

On 2011-11-01 02:30, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2011, at 7:06 AM, "Tomasz Mrugalski" <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about a different perspective on RA and DHCP disagreement? RA
>> provides generic mechanism for all hosts in a network. DHCP allows to
>> provision routing information on per host basis. Therefore you can
>> deliver additional configuration to selected subset of hosts. That's why
>> I would prefer DHCP over RA as a way to override "default" configuration.
> 
> Yup, that's a really good point.  I think this is sufficient justification for preferring the value obtained through DHCP. 

Yes, that's a good way to look at it.

I don't see how to avoid some discussion outside MIF, however. Probably v6ops
is best for this particular aspect.

> I will buy the security argument when I see the first successful use of DHCP security by a naive end user...  :)

Fair enough, but at least the security benefits should be written down.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email