Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 17/07/2017 à 22:33, Ross Chandler a écrit :
> 
>> On 17 Jul 2017, at 20:30, Ted Lemon <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> What the document actually implies is that individual address 
>> assignment using DHCPv6 is not recommended; instead it is
>> recommended that each host get a /64.  The only way to do that
>> right now is with DHCPv6 PD.   So the document is explicitly
>> recommending the use of DHCPv6.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-06
>
>  Section 4 describes a way of assigning a /64 per host using RAs that
> is already deployed in real networks. No DHCPv6 involved.

There is something wrong with that draft: it only allows for 64.  Why?
DHCPv6-PD can delegate other plengths, like 65.

> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt
>
>  Introduces an eXclusive flag to optimize RA for nodes that are
> exclusive receivers of all traffic to the prefix.

This is another way of calling RA "Prefix Delegation".

There are other drafts doing Prefix Delegation with RA, have you
considered them?

>> However, if the only DHCP service available is individual address 
>> allocation, then indeed that is not recommended, because it has 
>> serious privacy implications.   And it is not _generally_
>> recommended that people operate networks that require DHCPv6 static
>> individual address allocation (IA_NA) for this same reason.   Using
>> the DHCPv6 privacy profile does mitigate this concern, but still
>> the best thing to do is just enable SLAAC.
>> 
>> I don't think these views are particularly controversial in the
>> IETF. I'm one of the authors of RFC3315, and I agree with this
>> view.
> 
> Given the above two drafts DHCPv6-PD to hosts has an uphill struggle
> to ever achieve widespread deployment.

I dont think so.

I think DHCPv6-PD should be trialled at IETF WiFi and then we'll see.

Alex