IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFB81B2AC1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 i8eQDkjZnGQd for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373CE1B2AB8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1ZJfOr-0000CgC; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:12:49 +0200
Message-Id: <m1ZJfOr-0000CgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <20150723130715.12113.47480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55B1ED14.6030501@gmail.com> <m1ZIZ4w-0000CbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr2z6T86gmQMPZwbgFB4mdt7=xWNuei5jaQg=vpG7-zLVg@mail.gmail.com> <m1ZJdjZ-0000CcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20150727091241.GL84167@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:12:41 +0200 ." <20150727091241.GL84167@Space.Net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:12:48 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/68z_BULkLA6lJ0rGHSO_wCQ5N6k>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:12:52 -0000

In your letter dated Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:12:41 +0200 you wrote:
>> I didn't keep track, did homenet explictly pick SLAAC over DHCPv6?
>
>DHCPv6 or DHCPv6-PD?  You're mixing terms...
>
>For hosts, SLAAC is used, for non-homenet routers behind a homenet,
>DHCPv6-PD.  Not sure about DHCPv6 for hosts, though.

My reasoning is, you want DHCPv6-PD for hosts if hosts are doing DHCPv6 because
otherwise they would have to obtain losts of DHCPv6 leases.

Now if homenet has decided that there will never be DHCPv6 for hosts on 
homenet then this is a non-issue.

If they didn't make such a decision, then we have to think how DHCPv6-PD for
hosts would work in a homenet environment.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email