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

Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.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 0D12211E8348 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 hBgPlBHDrIV8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog134.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog134.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4A811E836B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob134.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUmeuW0rdgEPsMqODYVpwjYxeQUFwoFKB@postini.com; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:09:25 PDT
Received: from MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.132) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:04:58 +0200
Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.42]) by MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.132]) with mapi; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:05:03 +0200
From: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
To: "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:05:02 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
Thread-Index: Ac7P2ije0zMJ+BesSs69PxBwDk5w1QABS7hA
Message-ID: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806F97636E8@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
References: <55F2A998-0417-4C19-B248-AA2A80EBF29C@cisco.com> <52679F9F.7040403@inex.ie> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806F97635FF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <20131023.122507.41670841.sthaug@nethelp.no>
In-Reply-To: <20131023.122507.41670841.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 11:09:40 -0000

Well, "it worked in IPv4" might not be the correct approach :-).  From time to time I hear: let's do clamping again for v6, it works on v4 too ....  anyway, out of scope in this discussion.

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.

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