IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 4EEAD21F8C8E for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 maCN56RRxXJ9 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8181A21F8C74 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:30:10 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10611B8252 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB744190052; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:30:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:30:08 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] RA vs DHCPv6 config (was Review requested: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option)
Thread-Index: AQHMl0NqObKG560zMkGTar0EyAgE6pWVae/KgAFXCgD//7LpSA==
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:30:06 +0000
Message-ID: <D3DB4F64-0A42-4346-9D26-52C7629F1A03@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>
In-Reply-To: <4EAE811A.1030005@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 13:30:11 -0000

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. 

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

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status