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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 28/10/2013 00:21, Xing Li a écrit :
> 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

This was proposed in the past and it has advantages to which I could agree.

I thought the goal was to not modify RA, whereas the above does modify 
the RA to include a DNS resolver.

If yes, would it be ok to include a Prefix Delegation option as well in 
the RA? (not an RFC4191 option, but a new Prefix Delegation option 
pasted from DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation).

Alex

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops