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

Bing,

I as able to review the draft and agree this needs to be documented and
discussed.  I have had many frustrating nights dealing with my multiple
OSs at home and figuring out what behaviour I was trying to expect when
changing the upstream router's settings (M/O/A).

I think the problem space discussion within the draft should be enough to
have a preliminary discussion in the WG.  I know there have been issues in
the past with various opinions on what the M/O bits (for example) should
or should not be used for - or how authoritative they should be.

If the groups can agree that there is in fact a problem, then I would
agree with Arturo that we can have a constructive follow-up
draft/discussion on the corrective action.

Lets get past step 1 and agree there is an issue (or not); then go down
the more sensitive path of agreeing to the corrective action.

Thanks for putting this together.

Regards,

Victor Kuarsingh

On 2013-02-26 2:14 AM, "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> wrote:

>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: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 PM
>> To: Liubing (Leo)
>> Cc: rbonica@juniper.net
>> 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
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------