Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 09 January 2018 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 D1DC9127337 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 03:59:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 1CU1vG6m061R for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 03:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 539D4126DEE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 03:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id w09Bx7m5047708 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:59:07 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 045312050E3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:59:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59042050C8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:59:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id w09Bx6dC008337 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:59:06 +0100
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <B7CB2B98-F069-425D-A096-AADA0297B34C@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0r=OZKWHatcaV5ZfXUcJhTrzGqnd6wno7SLur9cJzF5w@mail.gmail.com> <066901d385ab$64d663b0$2e832b10$@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2GjXKM53rJJwRzX7RyrCG8u+KZ0TTGuFv=NefHsKRxrw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11d764f6-e0d7-c24e-7b51-c8b5bb026082@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:59:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2GjXKM53rJJwRzX7RyrCG8u+KZ0TTGuFv=NefHsKRxrw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XL1dxSNU7p5PIOrLsGjAr0Jrz_U>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
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: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 11:59:11 -0000


Le 05/01/2018 à 02:32, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:28 AM, <7riw77@gmail.com 
> <mailto:7riw77@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> As the implementer of devices that are sometimes IPv6 routers, I
>> object to the requirement that such devices MUST implement DHCPv6.
>> The reason is that implementing DHCPv6 will degrade the user
>> experience. See
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg26286.html
> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg26286.html>
>> for an example of how that can happen.
> 
> Being required to implement DHCPv6 is far different than being 
> required to _turn it on by default_ -- the draft specifically does 
> not require DHCPv6 to be turned on by default for this very reason.
> 
> 
> Help me understand. Are you saying that mobile hotspots should
> implement DHCPv6 because this draft says so, but then never turn it
> on because it's bad for their users?

On my side I think this: mobile hotspots MUST implement and turn on
DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation, because it is the only way to be a mobile hotspot.

(I am saying "DHCPv6 PD", not DHCPv6 overall; i.e. a mobile hotspot MUST
implement and turn on DHCPv6 PD, _and_ MUST NOT necessarily implement
DHCPv6 IA_NA nor MUST it turn on DHCPv6 IA_NA).

Alex