IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7934

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 19 July 2017 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948BC12EAF7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxUhGWdChNuS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x236.google.com (mail-pg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC80131A86 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id v190so28219963pgv.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TOE/Wdvc17tQgj0Qsiz+M595PS7jIYB1gcRdYFBhI7Q=; b=MXdF2muu5qP/EZTiX07W3y4BnSRM3z4wEimQYFxgkdisLLCuGYnQZ64bDzKQ4rEQ/g LN44RXmnU5S2bNq56iHkveQrBwM4hvHr9tgGsjLuzCDikq6yPVkIx62Bw421bkqphO6t Pemc3k6fP/g2tlCrKm3DNTLwoi/BrbKleoHotsyfqkdMMdzW3uhpxta/OC7cRyIKzhAU lgySjjiYDKMrXqq9RF39av0JgkOpiFHkZ7Z71E4B8srn1JW46pkLIqWjVsSzSrZdHqFm Ei0/Dchf6l0dBW4UaGHsQaOEObfoZuuo0th0R7/SofFhqJ98QJKJZLgBp5iPMMpiyMmB lSWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TOE/Wdvc17tQgj0Qsiz+M595PS7jIYB1gcRdYFBhI7Q=; b=tw7aVs7ConheQKDsaWPso4hlBYilOZ75ET9tU3AcTTQdakgbkCzY3rR08gAabVzwBn B4lL9ZZN91edfuOgBhqRcEkLQEntTPWuDdWmNr/mOsi7bEl0hjTB2PYCtBXC+BX96roN Q8pNILvw4OPuMkEWOiQUzjnc4P0iKKwjFkbH+5YOjjXiU7vD7dYWhJ9i3cs0dn8xgHvW pAODfP/yE1mUe5Cee0bbk7hSJZya6+o2e5SCaULysAnBEek69wkEqcQVM6jCMTysh/K/ wu/Iz2Hjwj5wo7UiCoRn9eegs1IgbIph8wr1K8Qqo/eDMlFKE8yWgtEMZvv1KMc5K6yJ 0aaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112ItaXKzA2xYdRWrSAD4HTz+p2QhH72+vLC+Bbuq3/rVER3ehT2 ConCnxnZKopo4C9jxJGgYVTr9Ogmf0rh
X-Received: by 10.98.67.147 with SMTP id l19mr2086419pfi.198.1500457043150; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <49f25b72-8709-0424-131f-8be72c85359d@gmail.com>
References: <596CF817.8040900@foobar.org> <CAFU7BAQ5h5dHKmDbOHo9+JCgo+WZpQmctf8F+_0OfJ0dV=tmww@mail.gmail.com> <ef9cc89d-8fbc-47c1-6955-0c005149b13c@gmail.com> <CAFU7BASSdp5+0DQr+7vusZ14YW3Zcu9se4x7zpt02-tNvVS_DQ@mail.gmail.com> <29e1e447-2dca-028f-87dc-6fab52ee4f00@gmail.com> <49f25b72-8709-0424-131f-8be72c85359d@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:36:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1n=nCqCRdu46VkrsA0+yVeJQxX=S3jmG131djPOvQcrVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0c0f440edeef0554a8619e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1p9bY4bsWqp2j5hUy0tjVqVF-Rc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7934
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:37:26 -0000

Let me restate my question then.

Right now the document explicitly does not recommend DHCP IA_NA.   It
doesn't recommend it because it doesn't provide the privacy characteristics
that the other options provide.   Your suggestion essentially says that the
document should recommend it.   So you must have some reason why it should
make this recommendation.   Can you state that reason?

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted, about losing face: I agree the RFC does not recommend against DHCP.
>
> Le 19/07/2017 à 10:07, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Le 19/07/2017 à 00:47, Jen Linkova a écrit :
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
>>> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jen said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I had to use all my imagination and still not sure how the phrase
>>>>> 'it is RECOMMENDED that the network give the host the ability to
>>>>> use new addresses without requiring explicit requests.' can be
>>>>> read as 'DHCPv6 is not recommended'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because SLAAC does not obtain addresses by using Requests.  That's
>>>> DHCP who uses Requests to obtain addresses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me give you an example. Imagine that we have apples and oranges.
>>> Then I say: 'It is recommended that children are given apples every
>>> day'. Does it mean "giving children oranges is not recommended'? No.
>>> False. However the statement 'giving children oranges (and oranges
>>> ONLY) is not recommended' is true. See the difference? ;)
>>>
>>
>> Give children 3 apples and oranges a day.
>>
>
> Let me try to clarify.
>
> I find it to be a better RECOMMENDation to state clearly: please use
> DHCP-PD, multiple-DHCP-Address, RA-with-Abit-set, in arbitrary order, and
> potentially all simultaneously.
>
> This recommendation is better than being silent about which protocol
> should be (or not be) used.
>
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email