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

[Xing Li <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo Colitti 写道:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Gert Doering <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     > > I do not think that I made an actual proposal here.
>     > I mean "Stateful RA could actually be piggybacked onto DHCP, so
>     that the
>     > router just creates a DHCP message and forwards it upstream, or
>     answers
>     > it locally, depending on the circumstances." xing
>
>     This is called "DHCP relay or DHCP server on the router". I can't see
>     what this has to do with RA ("periodically multicasted to everyone who
>     wants to receive it").
>
>     This idea is... completely lacking the understanding of the difference
>     between solicited and unsolicited information, and also of the
>     existing
>     possibilities of just having a DHCPv6 server (or relay) on the router
>     itself.
>
>
> The way I read that was:
>
> 1. Host sends RS.
> 2. Router gets RS, encapsulates it in DHCPv6 option to DHCPv6 server.
> 3. Server replies with RA parameters.
> 4. Router sends unicast RA to host.
>
> The unicast RA would have more information than the multicast RA 
> (e.g., more specific routes). The idea being that you if you do this 
> you can send different clients different information (which is one of 
> the things that DHCPv6 offers but RAs typically do not).
>
> So it's basically a RA-to-DHCPv6 translator in the router.
>
> If you want to do it this way, I don't see why you would use DHCPv6 
> and not something like radius, but I suppose you might want to do that 
> if you need to keep state on the server (radius is stateless).
+1. The stateful configuration is required in CERNET2 case. xing