IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 05 December 2019 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 4B08112008B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:58:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 NunOaz-FD6Os for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E37D12008A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47Sy506zXQz9vbLF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 00:58:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6juxT28v96wL for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:58:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47Sy505RQdz9vKfH for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:58:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id t185so1093761qkd.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:58:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BFKbVvg8gdkpq9ybw0WcvO4WBSkOq4gBrIuuszmLEWY=; b=g1hOtdJozEOiMV5TK3BvxQNNKrux4+CalPlr4VqhWA0xKZeKLMzeB8LPs72QY+W09u Xfalgb6TbiOCeJ7sPq8OvCoVkPI4xLMZNOG/2L4IbaKVe41PUS/+lUO4ueSEBQloyox+ hs1hANGkT+2NxsbOw1IDi/vZmiDULKKYTXfh96jWg/jG+1aMB8dhmNcZ6WsdczYEzFtr a0PX9zMJCq47SJ3vUe51e72pRwlk0e2mKxwDuF8WW85V3lhh3I/GWV9eJVTgGOvU/uV3 0iPTFN7ITc/U8b+ch5rY1336OB7NEjpKFxviYIXbIgYe/kBK6zlk1oJ/Mcid2jNf/7N1 75NA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BFKbVvg8gdkpq9ybw0WcvO4WBSkOq4gBrIuuszmLEWY=; b=F5XvOwn2hxY5g7OpcznI5/Qdze2fWP5PMaoiIWt3D1qfXHKA/0XTBuMhy68Dtaj0fT JPqLFEC5/2h72HIsKKDNBS5+f71UKjRKPDA7eW+U3pG5G0bLyrnUv1WWXj9tF5jLtAKi nruTmkjSL+dK459j15g9To/yi6TBec6N38DWoqqXs5GPYNptVtNZy6lswHovVqtPQxtg 0d/IGoXTcvQI3JmONqsh+7ywyDPujwLg6N9A0B3RbtBS0kxdVSidMzsy6cJcRz62GyQ5 eCzYDi4GKVu4pRyH/q0dJK5tPhgOSB+W0bvuAagiih9qoB4wTmarO9WBoQe/tuNOmsgb AUdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWub51/Rz5+8PbtO6OX51wr30hkGMx3xwiJXVBdTp26RHU/jC2i JhKLfCu782oXjG12/gTwM3ezG9btNUViNWc6sBP3i3oj8h/PZyavPpmQYOu8WWuHUbbKCayxNme J8PGgOEBZJD0xsv0OWcGQrzZd+g==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e109:: with SMTP id g9mr5892129qkm.141.1575507490568; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:58:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdVaSsR0C5Wg2vH9xmzsBnSm1YMcv/xUKPdSqbxHASA/A03zQ030GbFVKke+21RW0bMJn7E71uFMg3GNKz5hU=
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e109:: with SMTP id g9mr5892109qkm.141.1575507490121; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:58:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <E03BBE6C-3BED-4D49-8F79-0A1B313EFD9D@apple.com> <28594.1575483729@localhost> <CAFU7BAQp2-4EwntFj6Nx+be54-fi+gnQmRgT6yS22p=vYugpzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAQp2-4EwntFj6Nx+be54-fi+gnQmRgT6yS22p=vYugpzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 18:57:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1L_hdRMiGApa7VKuZ0_f5q1NJ-5sHMeg-dtTWa=Tq6bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, dhcwg@ietf.org, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-link-dhc-v6only@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a46b50598ea6c44"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/9MJfYUtrfQ50F5gGQ-DBPx8k1SY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 00:58:15 -0000

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:22 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
> > A question that we had was whether or not hosts in a IPv6-mostly network
> > should configure IPv4-LL addresses in order to speak to legacy-v4-only
> hosts.
>
> Actually the more I think about it the more I believe the host should
> be doing whatever they are doing w/o DHCPv4 presence.
> Android does not configure IPv4 link-locals, MacOS does. Making the
> same OS behaving differently ("no DHCPv4 whatsoever" vs "DHCPv4 server
> responded with IPv6-only Preferred option") might be undesirable. As
> an operator I'd expect that IPv6-only capable host would behave the
> same way on a dedicated IPv6-only segment and on IPv6-mostly segment.
>

Regarding IPv4-LL, I like Roy Marples suggestion of combining this with RFC
2563 to determine if a host is to configure an IPv4-LL, and in that case,
the address returned should be 0.0.0.0.

Also, is there any reason that 0.0.0.0 shouldn't be the address retunded by
a server "if the IPv6-only Preferred option is present in the Parameter
Request List received from the client and the corresponding DHCP pool is
explicitly configured as belonging to an IPv6-mostly network segment" as
discussed in Section 3.3?

Thanks


> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email