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

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 23 October 2013 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDA211E817A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jc+oAntySLQr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 27C8E11E831B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 49036 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2013 10:25:07 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 23 Oct 2013 10:25:07 -0000
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:25:07 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20131023.122507.41670841.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806F97635FF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
References: <55F2A998-0417-4C19-B248-AA2A80EBF29C@cisco.com> <52679F9F.7040403@inex.ie> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806F97635FF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: otroan@cisco.com, draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:25:39 -0000

> To be honest, I haven't kept up with the full exchange on this topic, so please disregard my question if it is not relative to this discussion.
> 
> I read below that, if netmask and def gw would be added on handing out dhcpv6, "I can finally get rid of RA messages".
> But what with hosts NOT supporting dhcpv6 client in this case ?  I might be fully wrong, but I cannot imagine it can be 100% enforced upon each host vendor to include dhcpv6 client support?

It worked for IPv4. Yes, I realize IPv6 is different, and the target
market is different (e.g. light bulbs).

Nevertheless - as an ISP, I am going to require DHCPv6 for dynamic
address customers. I would be very happy if I only needed DHCPv6 and
could do without RA. (Note RA != ND/NS)

Steinar Haug, AS 2116