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

Arturo Servin <> Thu, 24 October 2013 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A5E11E8349 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zv+IZ5HRleqH for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B29811E8355 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ey11so2690327wid.7 for <>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=BCv/72zh4CCV5ujU3+VY4k5wxgBo5lto5JDCXtmAfkM=; b=f4yslWTT0yX2EDCt7aRUS5M/Uo0O9GNjBGRrKX2iMbxamGUuFG8L3Hvex8Qyv3/5kp MEFjK7lumis2CWPjgQmLM7bvbnhtXKVFBYhfvsQX6eJVlXxtxQjwda0KBBmLQ8qxtows MHC+8V/+e1QSEixGtS4rLz8mzFOd1F3tev8OpnmWZzCcb+OL/tXXI5tAOPelvGmi3kOp /QQIMVz3uEpeJT1oZ63hj1ojK9bWugjB7hRqKjrcfx+q6f1lJFymKqF/2FneGEvO249s rrEZqqAJqnO8h8nbQnraiuhEsdnIeiYt+y9TYIp+HTC4Me4tFmfmBySCIewV8CkyIRwq l47g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id pm6mr2987327wjc.47.1382626609388; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Arturo Servin <>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:56:29 -0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Victor Kuarsingh <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1b31ce8ef3204e97dd737
Cc: "" <>, Ted Lemon <>, "Ole Troan \(otroan\)" <>, Dave Thaler <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:00:09 -0000

I think that neither RA or DHCP can serve as the only-solution to provide
dynamic configuration information in IPv6. There are use cases where one is
suitable and the other is not as some have point out.

What I think we need is a clear strategy of what we need to do regarding
those mechanisms and accept that we will need to support them both in the

Lorenzo's proposals seems to be a good start.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Victor Kuarsingh <>wrote;wrote:

> From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
> >I see two possible ways out of this:
> >>1. Decide a clear split between what goes into RA and what goes into
> DHCPv6, and then stick to it. For example, we >>could say that
> configuration information that is required to obtain basic connectivity on
> a network must be available in >>RA so it can be dynamically updated and
> shares fate with routing, and that everything that's not strictly required
> for >>the host's connectivity can go into DHCPv6. I don't know if it will
> be possible to draw a line here. If operators insist that >>DHCPv6 by
> itself must be sufficient, then we have no choice but to duplicate
> information.
> [VK] Although this is theoretically possible, I am not if we can actually
> orchestrate this and keep it split indefinitely.  I think we will see
> requests/requirements on both sides which may drive (I.e. Like operators)
> functions into either protocol.
> >>2. Attempt to say that RAs and DHCPv6 are simply containers and propose
> a unified option format so we can have the >>same options in both of them.
> I know this was already proposed once and was shot down, but I wasn't
> around, so I >>don't know why. (CCing a few people who might know).
> [VK] This seems like an intriguing idea. Would this mean that every option
> must go into each container, or that there will be a common set of options
> which go into both, and perhaps exceptions go into one or the other? (On
> that latter part, I guess that line of thinking gets us back to where we
> are).
> Regards,
> Victor K
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list