Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 21 October 2013 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A806611E83AE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.777, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 wudjePJZb9Bt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6064111E81B1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BEC689C; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:01:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9FF9A; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:01:28 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:01:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: fred@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <201310211245.r9LCj0B29668@ftpeng-update.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1310211454090.26825@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <201310211245.r9LCj0B29668@ftpeng-update.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:01:47 -0000

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, fred@cisco.com wrote:

>
> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem. Please take a look at it and comment.

I like the fact that this work is being done. It seems to me the current 
standards leave too much room for interpretation.

I would like to see the following deployment scenarios being possible, and 
all hosts should support them.

1. No Prefix information, M=1, Host gets /128 IPv6 address for own use and 
a default route (RA), possibly other information. All traffic to other 
hosts that is not LL goes via router.

2. PIO /64, A=0, M=1, host gets /128 out of on-link /64, can communicate 
with other hosts on-link directly.

3. PIO /64, A=1, M=1. Host gets /128 from DHCP plus can do SLAAC, 
otherwise same as above.

4. PIO /64, A=1, M=1. Host gets /128 from outside /64 via DHCP, plus can 
do SLAAC within the /64.

Also it's quite worrying about the state changes when A/M/O changes. I 
believe that it might be time to re-rev our standards documents to specify 
exactly what should happen for each case.