Re: [v6ops] Thinking about problems in IPv6-only networks

["Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <[e-mail]>]

> I will boldly assert that there are no RFCs requiring updates in order
> to deploy IPv6-only.

I suggest both DHCPv6 and SLAAC to be enabled by default. Currently, RFC4861 recommends to disable DHCPv6 by default.

RFC4862 already mandates SLAAC by default. Section 5.5:
						"the processing described below MUST be
						enabled by default."
But, this should be changed:
	- RFC4861 section 6.2.1: AdvManagedFlag and AdvOtherConfigFlag: Default: FALSE
	==> Change 'O' bit default value to TRUE (AdvOtherConfigFlag: Default: TRUE).

 to allow hosts to be deployed and automatically configured (i.e. get IPv6 address and other configuration automatically) in any environment:
- DHCPv6 only environment (no config via RA and SLAAC can be disabled), or
- SLAAC only environment (no DHCPv6 config and DHCPv6 can be disabled), or
- DHCPv6 and SLAAC environment.
using the default settings.

With the current RFC4861 recommendation (AdvManagedFlag and AdvOtherConfigFlag: Default: FALSE), if DHCPv6 is disabled on hosts that are deployed in the network which configures hosts using DHCP (DHCPv6 only environment), the hosts will not work. Changing AdvOtherConfigFlag: Default: TRUE will allow hosts to assign SLLAC addresses and obtain the application configuration using stateless DHCPv6.

Regards,
Dusan.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 12:20 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thinking about problems in IPv6-only networks
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/20/2018 08:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Well, first we need to know our objective. I suggest that our
> > objective should be to identify things that the IETF should
> > do to alleviate the alleged problems. Since what we can do
> > is write standards-track, BCP or informational RFCs, the real
> > question is: which of the alleged problems could in fact be fixed
> > by new RFC text?
> 
> That was exactly the charter of sunset4, which is in a coma from lack of
> work.
> >
> > I don't know how to do that except by making a list of the
> > alleged problems and checking off the ones that RFC text
> > could fix. Boring, no?
> 
> I will boldly assert that there are no RFCs requiring updates in order
> to deploy IPv6-only.
> 
> I make that assertion not so much from complete confidence, but as a
> challenge to prove me wrong.
> 
> IPv6-only deployment suffers from scarce business drivers, buggy
> implementations, and vendor support. There's an enterprise
> "multi-homing" problem that I think has been addressed several ways.
> There's the interaction of fragmentation headers and DNSSec (or other
> apps using transport without session management, or anycast; see
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile).  I don't think there's more the IETF
> can do.
> 
> Lee
> 
> >
> >      Brian
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIGaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKp
> l1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=L_93
> AEOrqv1BjCUqko2-t_K-PeKX4KhbiWDsgHHxa90&s=Vb-
> HRMCpnYvnHdEL5pFK2yFbAmKqPU6Aq0RTxBtyiZw&e=
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIGaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKp
> l1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=L_93
> AEOrqv1BjCUqko2-t_K-PeKX4KhbiWDsgHHxa90&s=Vb-
> HRMCpnYvnHdEL5pFK2yFbAmKqPU6Aq0RTxBtyiZw&e=