Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Interaction Operational Guidance-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-guidance

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/01/2014 08:05, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> Authors,
>
> I see this document has a "Guidance for DHCPv6-only Deployment" section
> which mentions "DHCPv6-only configuration without RAs". Three points on
> that:
>
> 1. We had a discussion on this topic when discussing the problem
> statement draft a couple of weeks ago, and I thought we had agreed that
> a DHCPv6-only configuration without RAs doesn't do anything useful at
> all, and since it doesn't do anything useful at all, it should not be
> documented. See for example at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg18231.html
>
> If it's not documented in the problem statement document because it
> doesn't do anything useful, then it certainly should not be documented
> in the guidance to operators document. And in fact, the draft already
> states that "this is an invalid use case".
>
> Can you remove it, then? As an operational group we don't want to
> provide guidance on invalid use cases. :-)
>
>
> 2. That section should also make it clear that in a DHCPv6-only deployment:
>
>   * If there is no RA, the addresses assigned by DHCPv6 cannot be used
>     for anything at all.

Lorenzo - you keep saying that but does it have any practical basis? 
Have you tried it?

Alex

>   * If there is an RA that specifies a default router but does not
>     specify the on-link prefix, then all traffic, even between hosts on
>     the same link, is routed at layer 3 by the default gateway.
>
>
> 3. Please do not cite [DHCPv6-ROUTE]. That document was so controversial
> that it was removed from the WG's charter and is no longer a WG item, so
> it is inappropriate to cite it in an operational guidance document.
>
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Liubing (Leo) <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Dear All,
>
>     In ietf88 meeting, we discussed
>     draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem which indicated the hosts'
>     behavior might varied on DHCPv6/SLAAC interaction caused by
>     ambiguous standard definition. (The draft was adopted as
>     ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem after the meeting.)
>
>     Since the above draft is only filed as a Problem Statement document,
>     as discussed in the meeting, the WG decided to initiate another
>     draft to provide some operational guidance of what the
>     administrators should do given the fact that the host behavior might
>     varied in some situations.
>
>     So this is the 00 version. Hope you can read it and comment.
>     Your review and comments would be appreciated very much.
>
>     And a late happy new year to you all.
>
>     Best regards
>     Bing
>
>
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 9:45 PM
>      > To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > Cc: [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > Subject: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-guidance
>      >
>      >
>      > A new draft has been posted, at
>      > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-guidance.
>     Please
>      > take a look at it and comment.
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > v6ops mailing list
>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>