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

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.
   - 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 Please do not cite [DHCPv6-ROUTE].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) <leo.liubing@huawei.com>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:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of fred@cisco.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 9:45 PM
> > To: v6ops@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-liu-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-guidance@tools.ietf.org
> > 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
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>