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

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

From:  Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
>I see two possible ways out of this:

>>1. Decide a clear split between what goes into RA and what goes into DHCPv6,
and then stick to it. For example, we >>could say that configuration information
that is required to obtain basic connectivity on a network must be available in
>>RA so it can be dynamically updated and shares fate with routing, and that
everything that's not strictly required for >>the host's connectivity can go
into DHCPv6. I don't know if it will be possible to draw a line here. If
operators insist that >>DHCPv6 by itself must be sufficient, then we have no
choice but to duplicate information.

[VK] Although this is theoretically possible, I am not if we can actually
orchestrate this and keep it split indefinitely.  I think we will see
requests/requirements on both sides which may drive (I.e. Like operators)
functions into either protocol.


>>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).

Regards,

Victor K