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

Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Thu, 24 October 2013 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <victor@jvknet.com>
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 BB3FF11E81A1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 AqvPhyeT0r1h for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f51.google.com (mail-qe0-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8142511E81A5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id q19so1351724qeb.24 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=+C5hKb1IWraHXjxlbtblSvB4Jywky4mNZ9rtEDirync=; b=SDVg28l4Py2ESrlMl+bnr2rViybGOwbjiIJXYp7Z+OCiOa8JHgIZaO9zgHEVwye9zu BrKAlDiNwNRiRQupVp03DNmar9jxAXNttqF7gpZpuzNB2lWsV4OYQiqhSHKATXs/mS2t bKRd/JTdwqTFuJ5H7T7VaDbHQDnW0FCvOGLP1VaesjREMzuImRE0q3wqxltNa9N9NjvV vNU+4yUTk3MWpV1xIWNgaQ3eS/i4QDSOeSPid+f0c3nGINmYuqsBhYOd8/t7gQR81eBv W98JalpkMqhekY+sHrca9M1rLzlClK6l/kaMa+DzhMCguwfPQZ88/DUWmQn5LqV8MMlS HEFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzqXOxUZ+GcAdOW7R5XMY2KqPSuZ6LjeR9/9I7egFXTS3yCRx43dixb7zDSp8E8nCarMSa
X-Received: by 10.224.88.70 with SMTP id z6mr1899986qal.116.1382619353714; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.100.33] ([67.224.83.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kz8sm2529273qeb.0.2013.10.24.05.55.46 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:55:38 -0400
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Message-ID: <CE8E8EC3.59F3A%victor@jvknet.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0ky0SSrhYz9R82bTO+GhrsBVL-_Uf-9sbYuLWKYpmi0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3465449752_6261691"
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "Ole Troan \(otroan\)" <otroan@cisco.com>, "draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org" <draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:56:42 -0000


From:  Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
>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