IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 8D2A311E8362 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 pxgMklFXcTAD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31E011E8259 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXC23370; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:20:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:19:49 +0100
Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:19:50 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.141]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:19:43 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>, "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
Thread-Index: AQHOz9ovEcEntaJe+k2jS/ZALT1zlZoBmaAAgACH3iA=
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:19:42 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D7CCAB5@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <55F2A998-0417-4C19-B248-AA2A80EBF29C@cisco.com> <52679F9F.7040403@inex.ie> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806F97635FF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <20131023.122507.41670841.sthaug@nethelp.no> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806F97636E8@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806F97636E8@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.132]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "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>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@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: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:20:38 -0000

> From: Wuyts Carl [mailto:Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com]
...
> Nevertheless, I can imagine you prefer the dhcpv6 over RA, but I doubt,
> looking at the big number of devices taking part in this these days (sensors,
> bulbs, etc) that they will all start supporting dhcpv6 client, not a chance I'm
> afraid.
[Bing] Agreed. These lightweight/embed systems might become an important part of the IPv6 net. ND allows minimal management burden for them.
Beyond address space, in my mind SLAAC is the most obvious advantage comparing to IPv4.

Regards,
Bing

> Thx for feedback
> 
> Regs
> Carl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sthaug@nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug@nethelp.no]
> Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 12:25
> To: Wuyts Carl
> Cc: nick@inex.ie; otroan@cisco.com; markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au;
> v6ops@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
> 
> > To be honest, I haven't kept up with the full exchange on this topic, so
> please disregard my question if it is not relative to this discussion.
> >
> > I read below that, if netmask and def gw would be added on handing out
> dhcpv6, "I can finally get rid of RA messages".
> > But what with hosts NOT supporting dhcpv6 client in this case ?  I might
> be fully wrong, but I cannot imagine it can be 100% enforced upon each host
> vendor to include dhcpv6 client support?
> 
> It worked for IPv4. Yes, I realize IPv6 is different, and the target market is
> different (e.g. light bulbs).
> 
> Nevertheless - as an ISP, I am going to require DHCPv6 for dynamic address
> customers. I would be very happy if I only needed DHCPv6 and could do
> without RA. (Note RA != ND/NS)
> 
> Steinar Haug, AS 2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email