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

Mark ZZZ Smith <> Wed, 30 October 2013 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5369721E80AE for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.153, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IH8TbXhu+keQ for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB5221E814A for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 30 Oct 2013 19:39:51 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 30 Oct 2013 19:39:51 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 30 Oct 2013 19:39:51 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Received: (qmail 2989 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Oct 2013 19:39:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1383161990; bh=ih8Jd8sALNAx37jQBhid15gQF6NMuKpzj7kyIiPyMro=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=5G6I1qGysjSBqBRU2no6DhkAuWoYhBU9y83BwWEQXTppf1Wv+yVMr5bMC0BSwkETleBWb2qvt7mhkB7BBa8q/jAoH/BDFoGJXU+NXbf5Z6GAMg/E5/YsjJijBO5UMLuDGQBflHP3MKQ5aByoiOQJKBYsCAx43jimsh3LDQlmBSQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vTwGQF7gy4fHZzOqtPbQHsVDPwepfFDSk5Lhkjqpi2alWWgvNGHpQSXEVA3dHnSW1XsoICZlWtinhZQHnB2tGzeSF8Dto26ZI/9J9nfMTe52zgziZ9jwJQK2xd0FnqriiS4cab8OIxjSjWFiHSStjC5MV8IwtJzRfkqD/ep3uLQ=;
X-YMail-OSG: 9pR7v8MVM1nnQ1iOD2zV7uHFCprn2hNsxxIacsWAi.mGGI8 uU6mZ3yjU7h8GNG6mIQebuCVZfAM0uKEqa9.70wvbmN0rA3grakfqJY6g9yz ADgAM3A9NYqteBMbng5FJWD0.P4UTsrYHlYpwylXgtO2ruBRTPwyxS1rp3Em WdVGkKNa2gvDV8pcyVD2qe6DZlmNDHxfkInj18RIYCGYyZixAI6bRWA5fgdz NYtULF6.1uivGB6DzLZBh2Pcgw9IZEqn1X9V81QCZE2PdoE5lfNupl9Dy6BO LOa.AGpQvnhfcy3ux7xTDq.x4broy06AfZsRIpt5kXc3NyubP8CNXe.8GwLw nDSrtv.Hkqy2jDUZaW9xB3fJjCGqBtlNCjEkoWPsHkfnMLXVA5EuYuhFe9hb Rf8A2qMMrBrHjbzTiBKgDgCt8SLPBxqdGbXAOQugQHx8M4jfWxnppavrKGY4 SlisuenipDLgq2cAl7IhzqvSCGL6NkHCme86tMNAQRZfIcNiL2tSPz5p2z1m 1QCN4SmGU4pU9hlt.p1_DN0Kz98jyO3IV2dTNSZE58jxDZ7CJr2XJmT53sa6 cPz66f_OOvbyDor816lZY_j0bNpzmJpYYAtiwrscdm16QPQ--
Received: from [] by via HTTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:39:50 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, CgoKCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0KPiBGcm9tOiBOaWNrIEhpbGxpYXJkIDxuaWNrQGluZXguaWU.Cj4gVG86IExvcmVuem8gQ29saXR0aSA8bG9yZW56b0Bnb29nbGUuY29tPgo.IENjOiAidjZvcHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgV0ciIDx2Nm9wc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4KPiBTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgMzEgT2N0b2JlciAyMDEzIDU6MTQgQU0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW3Y2b3BzXSBESENQdjYvU0xBQUMgTWFrZSBIb3N0cyBDb25mdXNpbmctLy9SRTogbmV3IGRyYWZ0OglkcmFmdC1saXUtYm9uaWNhLXYBMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/
References: <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310281905440.11422@ayourtch-mac> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310291443480.31066@ayourtch-mac> <> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310292030450.31066@ayourtch-mac> <> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310292040510.31066@ayourtch-mac> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>, Lorenzo Colitti <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:40:45 -0000

----- Original Message -----
> From: Nick Hilliard <>
> To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
> Cc: " WG" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2013 5:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft:	draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
> On 30/10/2013 13:07, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>  Find me an medium or large enterprise deployment that doesn't have two
>>  routers on every LAN segment. I'll bet almost all of them do, because 
> they
>>  know that if one crashes or they want to take it down for maintenance, they
>>  have an outage, and nobody likes outages.
> no need to bet - using multiple routers on a LAN is standard procedure
> where uptime matters.
> The question is why would someone use RA for multiple gateway announcement
> when you'll get much better operational performance from a FHRP + single
> gateway address?  And why use RA for addressing when you'll get finer
> grained operational host control using dhcp?

It's been said a number of times in this thread. You can have client specific RAs that solve that problem. This is not a missing capability that duplicating RA functionality in DHCPv6 would then provide.

> Or when you need to use dhcp
> anyway in order to make your hosts do what they need to do?  Or on server
> farms when most of your hosts are statically addressed and it doesn't make
> sense to have multiple gateways with different addresses - and you'll get
> better uptime by not using RA?
> I'm not proposing to take away the option of using RAs if that's what 
> you
> want to do.  I'm only suggesting that for many situations, it makes more
> sense to have a single static gateway address (optionally with multiple
> routers using a FHRP if you need reliability) and that consequently the
> idea of periodically announcing a selection of arbitrary gateways via RA is
> operationally second rate.

I'd really like to know specific details of these many situations, and what specific benefits switching off RAs would have. I've been in many situations in many networks, and when I consider my IPv4 experience (and also compare it to my Novell IPX and Appletalk experiences), I see a lot of value in having RAs provide default gateway(s) (VRRP/HSRP or not) information and other layer 3 parameters to directly attached hosts from the directly attached router(s). This is in comparison with the IPv4 alternative effort of enabling and configuring a heavier and more resource consuming stateful DHCP server on either the first hop routers, or enabling DHCP relays and then having to have a redundant DHCP infrastructure somewhere else in the network.

It could be argued that DHCP could be enabled and configured by default, but that is also obviously the case with RAs, and they've been enabled by default since day one. The ability to automate the configuration of DHCP doesn't inherently make DHCP better than RAs.



> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list