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

[Arturo Servin <[e-mail]>]

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
stack.

Lorenzo's proposals seems to be a good start.

/as


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
>
> From: Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
>
> >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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>