Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?

[Arifumi Matsumoto <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

sorry for late response.

On 2012/04/16, at 11:03, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 18:06, Arifumi Matsumoto <[e-mail]> wrote:
> RADIUS based approach needs standardization, implementation at the routing equipments, and upgrade of RADIUS servers.
> DHCP based approach needs upgrade of just the DHCP servers.
> 
> How can we say this is not the show stopper ?
> 
> I don't think that's a valid argument. You could say exactly the same about RAs:

I said, "From the access network provider perspective".
It is the cost they have to pay that matters to them.

> 
> "DHCPv6 based approach needs standardization, implementation at the host and CPE, and upgrade of DHCPv6 servers.
> RA based approach needs upgrade of just the edge routers.

AFAIK, only Windows Vista and above supports RFC 4191 by default, though.

Best regards,

> 
> How can we say this is not a showstopper?"
> 
> (Yes - my paragraph omits the fact that the RADIUS servers need to be updated. But your paragraph omits the fact that the hosts / CPEs need to be updated, too.)
> 
> Basically, using DHCPv6 is pushing the state out of the network and on to the CPE or the host. I'm sure this is desirable if you're a network operator. However, it's not so desirable if you're a host or CPE developer.
> 
> In general, I think pushing complexity and state to the host is fine, because hosts are the smartest entities in the network. However, I think that DHCPv6 is the wrong tool for the job, because its semantics (essentially, static configuration information that will not change for the duration of the lease, and cannot be invalidated if the DHCPv6 server goes away) are not rich enough to communicate routing information.


--
Arifumi Matsumoto
  NGN System Architecture Project
  NTT Service Integration Laboratories
  E-mail: [e-mail]
  TEL [phone] FAX [phone]