IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Mon, 17 July 2017 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
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 77B20131B33 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7QiPMosX_wKE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta04.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mta04.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CC175131C1F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16111 messnum 20189979 invoked from network[213.94.190.12/avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 17 Jul 2017 20:33:49 -0000
Received: from avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (HELO avas01) (213.94.190.12) by mta04.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 16111) with SMTP; 17 Jul 2017 20:33:49 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([86.40.119.162]) by Cloudmark Gateway with SMTP id XChQdFGMDcTICXCiDdx5Rt; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:33:49 +0100
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=DPn/22Fb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=ET4DzX2cQ4ZB4To4uwT5YA==:117 a=ET4DzX2cQ4ZB4To4uwT5YA==:17 a=mDhKZzf2AAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=7ywY2KPW2V2m4r9PoiMA:9 a=tudWCk7Ck0KkMc1Z:21 a=fe-H6QdZc47eanjp:21 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=2vPGa-vXXZzu3RC8VFUA:9 a=vy607ylgVl9k41Ja:21 a=KvP-Hodjt3UBZtbW:21 a=-zKv3T-qIoLWFnH6:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=CdbHPLkhJ6Q0XNsaeua2:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
Message-Id: <F13E7782-9888-4CA1-85D4-F349C6EB3E57@eircom.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_02B777C9-A6D8-4ADA-A1A9-A54EDF99ABC2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3439\))
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:33:48 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1m10bWVTkvoD+x3gKcvNDjBODSJM1rVF=DpE+NxzFAFjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <596CF817.8040900@foobar.org> <CAPt1N1mm6gMEQN0KQ60e=vROOEbooxOBpZEGBm9SGP4WwBDtnw@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC8M0HJdvWm02FbZeKH8S4-X9-dnE7xjMkQTXEFY=CrDnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1m10bWVTkvoD+x3gKcvNDjBODSJM1rVF=DpE+NxzFAFjQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3439)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfFGjEhfsfvcp9vu9g/vHPRjRvoRH8AXruttV8EKFS/cwonMddm9HEOhn5F/JkJSah5VwOUa3gy9KztS3+BABsn7xNK6ARf/Kr3MHwZeYu8NFPPdBF3jl zRQja3InNMS9Lo/ianUGFTrjQENRuDF+9gsb9t/uLvJxDPA00DT5IFn8aVxTGyvHl/uK8WNOsqwEU6juB0UyHHBu+YyJ+DUREsE=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OJKPgytgTZUropq-FrcfVyB8Bf8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 20:33:54 -0000

> On 17 Jul 2017, at 20:30, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> 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 <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.

https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt <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. 

> 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.

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email