Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-04: Enabling DHCPv6 in the enterprise networks by default, if DHCPv6 is supported on the router

I would also mention that IPv6 nodes requirements (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09) updates have
DHCPv6 is a SHOULD in all IPv6 nodes.

~Tim

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:09 AM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:

> You are continuing to confuse implementation and operation requirements.
> You are also ignoring reality...
>
> There’s no way for a router to know whether it is deployed in an
> enterprise environment or not at time of manufacture.
>
> Further, I don’t believe for one second that ALL enterprises will require
> or use DHCPv6. Perhaps most, but certainly not all.
>
> The current situation is that implementation of DHCPv6 in the protocol
> stack on ANY device is optional. There is a proposal to make it mandatory
> on routers only. There is no proposal that I know of to make it mandatory
> on hosts. Any such proposal would be a major change to IPv6 architecture
> that I am certain would face substantial opposition.
>
> Therefore there is no conflict between the ID you referenced and the RFC
> you referenced. Your proposed change to the RFC would be nonsensical absent
> an across the board requirement for DHCPv6 implementation in all protocol
> stacks. That’s not likely to happen, nor is DHCPv6 support in Android based
> phones.
>
> Since a router can’t know at manufacture time whether it is deployed in an
> enterprise or not, and since it is not universally true that enterprises
> will want DHCPv6, it is impossible to set M and O defaults in the manner
> you propose.
>
> The good news is that it’s also utterly unnecessary to do so.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 2018, at 06:36, Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <dmudric@avaya.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Barbara,
> >
> >> As for the millions of IPv4 phones -- these millions of phones are not
> >> connecting directly to DSL/DOCSIS/PON/3GPP access networks. They are not
> >> connecting to (unmanaged) home networks and getting configuration by
> >> DHCPv4. They are not connecting directly to data center networks.
> They're
> >> definitely not connecting directly to core network routers. They *are*
> >> connecting to enterprise networks. Suggesting that all routers, in
> every use
> >> case and every scenario, must always support DHCPv6 server and provide
> >> stateless configuration, just because there exist some devices in
> specific use
> >> cases that require configuration info from DHCP, isn't reasonable.
> >>
> >> If you want this specifically for enterprise routers, then perhaps you
> should
> >> be commenting on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs. Note that this draft
> does
> >> require DHCPv6 support (Section 3.3, first bullet) for the routers it
> describes
> >> (see Section 1.3 on Use and Applicability).
> >
> > Good point. I am talking about the phones in enterprise environments.
> >
> > It is not clear what the current consensus is:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-04#section-3.3
> :
> >
> > DHCPv6 is mandatory:
> >   o  [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]: Dynamic Configuration Protocol for IPv6
> >      must be supported.
> >
> > or DHCPv6 is optional:
> >  o  [RFC3646]: DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
> >      Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) if DHCPv6 is supported.
> > Should the last sentence be 'if DHCPv6 is enabled'?
> >
> > May be 'M' and 'O' can be TRUE by default in the enterprise networks, if
> DHCPv6 is enabled. That way the scope of enabled 'M' and 'O' is limited to
> the enterprises that configure their phones using DHCPv6. Since SLAAC must
> be enabled and the phones can create global SLAAC addresses, the phone
> applications can be autoconfigured by enabling 'O' bit only (default for
> 'M' stays FALSE). If enterprises don't use DHCPv6 for autoconfiguration
> (DHCPv6 is disabled), 'O' bit should be set to FALSE.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dusan.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 4:35 PM
> >> To: Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <dmudric@avaya.com>; Simon Hobson
> >> <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>; v6ops@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [v6ops] Thinking about problems in IPv6-only networks
> >>
> >>>> It's arguable that a host using DHCP when the RAs say not to is in the
> >>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Agree. But if 'O' bit is not supported on hosts, hosts should have
> DHCPv6
> >>> enabled by default. There are millions of IPv4 phones that use DHCPv4
> for
> >>> autoconfiguration (for phone applications), for example. When they
> >> migrate
> >>> to IPv6, they should get the configuration from DHCPv6 server. DHCPv6
> >>> should not be disabled by default when migrating those phone to IPv6.
> >> That
> >>> is why I think 'O' should be TRUE by default, so the phone
> applications can
> >> be
> >>> automatically configured by DHCPv6 server. By default, phones can use
> >>> SLAAC to get the addresses.
> >>
> >> Hi Dusan,
> >>
> >> There are millions of hosts with no DHCPv6 support. This is the case
> and will
> >> continue to be the case. Hosts that do not support DHCPv6 client will
> >> *never* have DHCPv6 enabled by default, or otherwise. Networks that are
> >> primarily intended for these sorts of devices will rarely (if ever)
> have DHCPv6
> >> enabled.
> >>
> >> As for the millions of IPv4 phones -- these millions of phones are not
> >> connecting directly to DSL/DOCSIS/PON/3GPP access networks. They are not
> >> connecting to (unmanaged) home networks and getting configuration by
> >> DHCPv4. They are not connecting directly to data center networks.
> They're
> >> definitely not connecting directly to core network routers. They *are*
> >> connecting to enterprise networks. Suggesting that all routers, in
> every use
> >> case and every scenario, must always support DHCPv6 server and provide
> >> stateless configuration, just because there exist some devices in
> specific use
> >> cases that require configuration info from DHCP, isn't reasonable.
> >>
> >> If you want this specifically for enterprise routers, then perhaps you
> should
> >> be commenting on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs. Note that this draft
> does
> >> require DHCPv6 support (Section 3.3, first bullet) for the routers it
> describes
> >> (see Section 1.3 on Use and Applicability).
> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> I
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>