IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?, hum v2

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 07 April 2017 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 87F09124B0A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Uw6sNVW172x for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x244.google.com (mail-io0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4628126557 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x244.google.com with SMTP id 68so7605247ioh.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/+uNx+IuMRRw7xJSeZHnGArAoMrq2egKw6cRIhMbzuI=; b=OriDlMwLerPRRa807vUbFO2lRM99q/5xxD9pCgh+REpKH5HB1+e21GWsjjmaz8mPqw 1nEaCnjUsPtfl9p+GjAI3gpHcq96k6bzYortAJUd5bN0QxzA0u8KBe9QLJUQhu3v9jPM dHG2Y1H404aTybA1gKN7v5Pl4eJoF4QivaSjaA5gGE8C3Wl64WRtYDHZjA+f1vnkP7Cn HRM3YaAFHw1If4wbY2cZSlpn16sN/r3slZevVzJzb5VcjL2+iwkAMeNa/DWe29ZV1EGf bSBflNsrB4IC7FqizHni7VepvAuQgjtO2TYwMQAK4k7N+NqOA3fV80FKlbxDxDpvNtVB bmgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/+uNx+IuMRRw7xJSeZHnGArAoMrq2egKw6cRIhMbzuI=; b=Wt8307lkpbDxlSEf2qXTSj8TwkcEBrMAOb3KSdGpNVGcYs4yOJOzcnZUhUxfCNfx62 uBHw03YJpkxoGaBuBdESBfpVQQOqJTotnQKdpBd5srXIa0EXydUZo82j2/ljQb25r5+H GMdjYUZZFoCtVeqOEzFZVMcEtqjz0INaHWv6X1B44EFvt2+m+LCXKFpu5EisBRoqjd1P eNCXJSr8DCpR2j1kVXKOR8PRucuGNAP+/9P1zK32hRTySSs7n/7PZb1rvVUl32laqq6i vPLxU4aJ5OA9IpTSAIqiTiSo3siPh7ZpJmQPIieyAySE4ilmSiTKKcExJFT9XVqhVgxp t1Qg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H16RA2BIsqDnhvCRYOgprS+22ViUlTL72c6LzpeqfSerAJ+ITuXSqY+H59+IdfJwQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.12.40 with SMTP id w40mr39316262ioi.209.1491574606209; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.11.95] (50-76-68-137-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.76.68.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m72sm1527791ith.12.2017.04.07.07.16.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Apr 2017 07:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-7@u-1.phicoh.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr2FMvpgjSPv-1cdWQGTFzB8oRCvm=57MgOv=tH11awpOA@mail.gmail.com> <A7E71D2A-33CE-4869-B51F-5D345D118E37@gmail.com> <20170406124635.0fb20504@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAOSSMjUPRSvEmx6KGLGLZwZbMLYVYsG-ik1w4N1q4RHcZHt6=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxqP98efWiEh4fcNeRvzUuaUvH+O-pf6322gQ+HJ40pBRg@mail.gmail.com> <20170406183800.3e4f5ef4@envy.e1.y.home> <CAKD1Yr3+YBvNMHPns8R=tv7Wa=zg2xSF5VG6ibuSmmOZLaFYUQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170406184840.524adb1c@envy.e1.y.home> <CAKD1Yr3HUeSNLkNCZLRV2s01zkwS1W2kWM3hrjS4D7K6HozAEw@mail.gmail.com> <1083adcc-06a2-8096-2724-a9774245e357@si6networks.com> <CAPt1N1n 4T0dZ4yk0bNCtqgzc4-uBzHQum46KAUz0q+s6OGc95Q@mail.gmail.com> <m1cwTJC-0000GyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAPt1N1=PhFVmhiATR+a_20c8M_Lu3_y-XN-wL_Gtz5pAVqvWZA@mail.gmail.com> <m1cwTP5-0000HHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAPt1N1mNCY4ROEq36isMgMO4iCpQFj=070YRuU0iwBgRZtKu=A@mail.gmail.com> <m1cwTmN-0000ISC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DB163E4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <fac89c79-40b1-bc86-a07d-7e2c25f5f171@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 02:16:52 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DB163E4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/poZ_ml6w8BjXT49N41aoJsVUgUI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Making RDNSS a MUST?, hum v2
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:16:48 -0000

On 08/04/2017 01:36, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>> I'd say that for routers, a MUST for RDNSS should be paired with a MUST for
>> DHCP relay and a SHOULD for DHCP stateless server.
>>
>> I'm not aware of routers that do not have the resources for a DHCP relay.
>> I.e., constrained devices tend to be hosts. If someone has a contrained
>> device that is a router, then a SHOULD for DHCP relay makes sense.
>>
>> I have not heard any technical objection to a DHCP stateless server that is off
>> by default.
>>
>> Likewise, if you have a configuration mechanism for RDNSS then the same
>> can be used for DHCP stateless. If the stateless DHCP server is off by default
>> it cannot do any harm.
>>
>> But I'm sure that if rough concensus can be declared that at least DHCP relay
>> is at least a SHOULD, then we should be able to sort out other details.
> 
> For enterprise routers (newly adopted draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs), yes. But leave my CE routers out of it. I'm not adding DHCPv6 Relay to my routers with built-in DSL or G.fast modems. The access network expects DHCPv6 messages to come from the 802.1x-authenticated device. Not through it.
> And leave tethering routers out of it, too. 3GPP wireless providers aren't asking for relayed DHCPv6 messages to be coming into the 3GPP wireless network.
> Focus on the enterprise routers. Those ar the operators asking for v6ops help.
> Barbara

More generally, qualify each requirement by the class of scenarios that it
applies to. It's very clear from this "discussion" that one size does not
fit all.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email