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

Xing Li <> Sun, 27 October 2013 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABA211E81D5 for <>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78-v00oaFgsq for <>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A0E11E817A for <>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3B7cQM2F21SRxEpAA--.53312S5; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:37:59 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:39:49 +0800
From: Xing Li <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7AF13AF43ZFykKw18tFWUJwb_yoW8uryDpF 4UX3Z5Kw4kJF1fA3ykG34YkFyFkrZ5JFW3Jwn8Ga1DCr98GFy2yrsIvw1Y9F9rWr1fAr4j va1Y9rnrCwsxZFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUU6mb7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_ Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr 0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj 6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41l42xK82 IYc2Ij64vIr41lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2 zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r126r1DMIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF 4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j 6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcS sGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU52zutUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Cc: "" <>, Dave Thaler <>, "Ole Troan \(otroan\)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:40:16 -0000

Ted Lemon 写道:
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Victor Kuarsingh <> wrote:
>> From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
>>> 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).
> I think the main reason we didn't do this is that it seems like a mistake to have two mechanisms for delivering the same information.   If we really think RA is the right way to do all host configuration, why not just add a stateful mode?   If we really think DHCP is the right way to do all host configuration, why not just add support for configuring routes?   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.

Based on CERNET2's IPv6 experience, I fully support Ted's proposal. xing

> Doing what's proposed here means that code on clients needs to be four times more complicated than it would be otherwise.   Putting DNS server options in RAs was a bad idea.   Continuing down that path is a worse idea, particularly since this proposal would mean there'd be two ways of representing DNS server information in RAs.
> If we really got this wrong, we should fix it, not make it worse.

> Anyway, that's the rhetorical position I'm going to stake out for now.   I'm curious to see if anybody can come up with a reason to disagree that doesn't simplify to either "I hate RA" or "I hate DHCP."

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list