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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 30, 2011, at 4:35 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> It makes my head hurt a bit to give RA config priority in one context and
> DHCPv6 config priority in another context. I think this point requires
> a wider discussion; you could find opinions about this in (at least)
> 6man, v6ops, homenet, and 6renum.

I really don't see how we can manage that.   That's five different mailing lists, not even counting the DHC mailing list.   The way I deal with this is to be on all those mailing lists.

As for your head hurting, you have my sympathy.   In reality, I think that if DHCP and RA disagree, that is a configuration error, and so it doesn't particularly matter which one is given priority.   They should agree.

> Not necessarily, if you think about out-of-the box default behaviour
> when someone hooks a few boxes together in an unmanaged network. That's why
> I have a feeling that "in case of conflict, DHVPv6 always wins" may turn out
> to be the right answer.

In this case, I would expect there to be no DHCP server.   Or if the homenet group decides that DHCP needs to work in this case, based on prefix delegation, then I would argue that DHCP should not automatically configure itself to provide a default route, since the default route ought to appear in the RA anyway.   But again, in this situation, even if homenet decides that DHCP should send a default route, the default route it sends should agree with the one sent in the RA.

If you are thinking of a bridged situation, homenet seems to have concluded that that's not the right thing to do anyway.  In a bridged environment, if more than one device tries to be the source of truth, it's pretty much a given that it's simply not going to work.