IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@cisco.com> Tue, 29 October 2013 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ayourtch@cisco.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 BB8AA21E8087 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 u51HsgN-Kfhn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F66011E8262 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1140; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383075230; x=1384284830; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=5luLoR5IkJAhlppk92vDPs7XxRMl0wOKwtyIzng9ucU=; b=i9JqTylH5rpO2RH1FRCJepxoxQPFWabB/4WL1RtqLZw4s59pzANl7Npu yHXyT2twF/bk7zDWjrTpk6sKhZMCtGFpp+vgSENfWf5FJIEZ+s37gUe4N kiO8RzFcihUUqcCXuWwOpEKI3wSJCQylTfWMM1OxuUy80Zkx2P7bSby3+ w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAMIMcFKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgweBDL80gSwWdIIlAQEBAwE4Aj8FCws7C1cGDogGBro3jgmBPgeELAOeRotMgWiBP4FoQQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,595,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="278142385"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2013 19:33:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9TJXn7k030878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:33:49 GMT
Received: from [10.61.200.140] (10.61.200.140) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (173.37.183.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:33:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:33:30 +0100
From: Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch@cisco.com>
X-X-Sender: ayourtch@ayourtch-mac
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <1383074208.73179.YahooMailNeo@web142505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310292030450.31066@ayourtch-mac>
References: <CE8E8EC3.59F3A%victor@jvknet.com> <06601039-CAFD-49B0-918B-A8ACD51B978D@fugue.com> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310281905440.11422@ayourtch-mac> <CAKD1Yr0qLd7syFizEUMa6DM2a2LY6Rv5GSFyoQAs4Pir6gcNkA@mail.gmail.com> <1383036443.56704.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1310291443480.31066@ayourtch-mac> <1383074208.73179.YahooMailNeo@web142505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (OSX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Originating-IP: [10.61.200.140]
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "Ole Troan (otroan)" <otroan@cisco.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.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
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:34:19 -0000

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:

> So I'm afraid I'm still confused by this.
>
> The reason why you need VRRP/HSRP etc. is because ND NUD isn't acceptably fast enough to detect that a default gateway has gone away. It might be possible to lower the NUD timers such that they detect default gateway death much quicker, however you then have all of the hosts actively probing the default gateway very quickly, creating load on its control plane.
>
> VRRP/HSRP avoids this control plane load by making the the switch between routers transparent or nearly transparent to the hosts, without the need to lower NUD timers. It could be viewed as a NUD special case and optimisation.
>
> This all has nothing to do with RAs or DHCPv6 - the need for VRRP is to overcome a performance limit in ND NUD, and that limitation would still exist in a DHCPv6 only model without VRRP/HSRP. So I don't understand why DHCPv6 is or woud be "better" and RAs are "worse" in this scenario.

Essence of that section: RA deals with routing [not always very 
efficently]. DHCPv6 does not do it at all.

--a

>
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email