Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 3:02 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Personally, I would NOT recommend breaking the semantics of a DHCPOFFER and always include an address because you never know how intermediate devices that may be "snooping" this traffic will handle this; for example, the intermediate device might drop what it feels is an invalid packet.
>
> This is definitely not an issue, though, because the network operator is choosing to deploy this.  They can be responsible for ensuring correct behavior if there are any middleboxes intercepting the DHCPv4 traffic and doing stuff with it.   Expecting this to Just Work with no infrastructure changes seems unnecessary.

The question is: how massive those infrastructure changes are and
what's the failure scenarios are expected. We might impede or even
completely prevent the adoption if the entrance barrier is too high.
Also in many cases people operating services (like DHCP) are not the
same people who are looking after the network infrastructure.

I see a big difference between 'incrementally enabling smth on clients
and servers' and 'getting switching and WiFi vendors involved and
upgrade the network infrastructure - which means moths or years of
delay, not mentioning non-obvious failure scenarios, when only some
clients are connected to way-too-smart-boxes'.
If we can make it transparent to the switching infrastructure we
probably should.
--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry