Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

"Weil, Jason" <jason.weil@twcable.com> Tue, 29 October 2013 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jason.weil@twcable.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 7918B11E8255 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.163
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Je9e8c90AWx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdcipgw02.twcable.com (cdcipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.91.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C07911E81F8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,595,1378872000"; d="scan'208";a="45998287"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdcipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 29 Oct 2013 15:59:24 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS17.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.95]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:59:40 -0400
From: "Weil, Jason" <jason.weil@twcable.com>
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>, "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>, Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>, "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:59:40 -0400
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
Thread-Index: Ac7U4WdVlBlo6XOJQ5Obnz7A4BuHFw==
Message-ID: <CE958B4D.207CD%jason.weil@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <1383074892.1756.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "otroan@cisco.com" <otroan@cisco.com>, "draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org" <draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:59:50 -0000

I wasn't claiming it was a problem that a host has two addresses. I was
just saying it might be beneficial in certain scenarios for all hosts on a
network segment (SLAAC-only, SLAAC+DHC, DHC-only) to have a single address
created using the same algorithm.

Jason

On 10/29/13 3:28 PM, "Mark ZZZ Smith" <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Weil, Jason" <jason.weil@twcable.com>
>> To: Liubing (Leo) <leo.liubing@huawei.com>om>; Wuyts Carl
>><Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>olor.com>; "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
>> Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>rg>; "otroan@cisco.com"
>><otroan@cisco.com>isco.com>;
>>"draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org"
>><draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 1:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft:
>>draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
>>
>> Leo,
>>
>> First I wanted to say this is useful work and I support it.
>>
>> This topic in this email reminds me of an issue that we have run across
>> that might be relevant to your draft:
>>
>> The use case involves a home network whose gateway router sets M=1 and
>>A=1
>> in order to provide DHC and and SLAAC for hosts that do not implement a
>> DHC client. If the DHCPv6 Server is implementing IP assignment using
>> interface-identifier and using the same prefix as advertised in the PIO
>> (assuming the server resides on the router advertising the PIO) with
>>the A
>> bit set, hosts that support SLAAC and a DHCPv6 client could construct
>>the
>> same address using DHC as the one they construct using SLAAC. What is
>>not
>> clear is what hosts should do in this situation. IMO, there is a benefit
>> if hosts that support both SLAAC and DHCPv6 construct the address and
>> prefer the DHC address over the SLAAC address. The benefit is that you
>> reduce the number of active addresses and all hosts end up with a single
>> address per prefix administered in this fashion.
>>
>> Of course if your DHC Server implements another assignment algorithm
>>(e.g.
>> Random) then your hosts that support both may end up with 2 addresses
>>out
>> of the same prefix.
>>
>
>Another way to describe your scenario is that it is a transition scenario
>between SLAAC and stateful DHCPv6, since some of your hosts don't support
>stateful DHCPv6.
>
>In your scenario, I don't think it is a big problem that some of your
>hosts will have two addresses within the same prefix - IPv6 hosts are
>designed to cope with many addresses, and a /64 has plenty of addresses
>to go around.
>
>If you do want to be specifically selective about which hosts use SLAAC
>and which hosts use stateful DHCPv6 for addressing, use host specific RAs
>which set the M and the PIO A bits on a selected host basis.
>
>Regards,
>Mark.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.