Re: [renum] SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps

["Liubing (Leo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Sheng

Thanks for your comments.
This is the first step, to see if there is consensus of agreeing the problems should be fixed in current standard. If so, we'll submit a draft to fix the ambiguous issue.

B.R.
Bing


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Jiang
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:37 AM
> To: Liubing (Leo); [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps
> 
> This has been a historic issue. Although there was discussions several times,
> the specification still remain ambiguous. The differences in OS
> implementations are good proof that we need to do something in IETF.
> 
> This document has well described the current standard status and reality
> operational issues. However, for me, this document fails to suggest what we
> may do to fix this issue, neither in the gap section or as conclusion. It is clear
> that part of RFC4862 needs to be updated to make the configuration
> behavior clear and consistent. For that, this document fails to give a feasible
> proposal. Maybe, the authors has saved that for another follow up standard
> track document.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Sheng
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf
> >Of Liubing (Leo)
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM
> >To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >Cc: [e-mail]
> >Subject: [renum] SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps
> >
> >Hi, 6man & v6ops
> >
> >We submitted a new draft to discuss the SLAAC/DHCPv6 interaction gaps.
> >
> >As we know there are several flags in RA messages regarding with the host
> >configuration behavior, which are A (Autonomous) flag, M (Managed) flag,
> >and O (Otherconfig) flag.
> >For some reason, the host behavior of interpreting the flags is ambiguous in
> >the standard (mainly RFC4862). I presented a draft discussing M flag
> behavior
> >in 6man @ietf84, and there were some feedbacks arguing the same issue.
> >This draft analyzed all the three flags, and provided test result of current
> >implementations, it showed the behavior of different mainstream desktop
> >OSes have varied. The ambiguous and variation might cause operational
> >problems, such as renumbering (used to discuss in 6renum WG and been
> >documented in the WG drafts), cold start problem, and management
> >gaps .etc.
> >
> >Your review and comments would be appreciated very much.
> >
> >All the best,
> >Bing
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 PM
> >> To: Liubing (Leo)
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: New Version Notification for
> >> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> A new version of I-D, draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt
> >> has been successfully submitted by Bing Liu and posted to the
> >> IETF repository.
> >>
> >> Filename:	 draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
> >> Revision:	 01
> >> Title:		 DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem
> >> Statement
> >> Creation date:	 2013-02-25
> >> Group:		 Individual Submission
> >> Number of pages: 12
> >> URL:
> >>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-
> >> 01.txt
> >> Status:
> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
> >> Htmlized:
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01
> >> Diff:
> >>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>    This document analyzes the host behavior of DHCPv6/SLAAC
> interaction
> >>    issue. It reviews the standard definition of the host behaviors and
> >>    provides the test results of current mainstream implementations.
> Some
> >>    potential operational gaps of the interaction are also described.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The IETF Secretariat
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >renum mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum