Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

["Dale W. Carder" <[e-mail]>]

Thus spake George, Wes ([e-mail]) on Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:41:52AM -0400:
> On 4/16/14, 10:45 AM, "Dale W. Carder" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >Modern enterprise wireless controller
> >networks are way, way more sophisticated than their wired counterparts
> >due to the management of scarce RF time.  So, I don't buy any argument
> >in this draft that there is a problem in this direction.
> 
> A fair point, but this extends beyond simply enterprise networks, and I’m
> not willing to assume that all wireless networks will have a controller,
> modern or otherwise. 

True enough.  Maybe this could also be clarified in the problem scope of
the draft.

> There are plenty of small and midsize networks that
> are simply one or more APs all strung together on the same LAN. 
> And given
> how universally bad hotel and conference center networks usually are, 

Is this the Godwin's law's for networking? ;-)

While dhcpv4 behavior could contribute to the chaos and potentially
could be cleaned up, there's obviously a lot more going on that makes these 
networks perform poorly.  Included in this is that there are also many more 
multicast protocols running for service discovery and sharing that are 
far more chatty and probably present a far larger problem in rf airtime.

> So I look at it as an opportunity for optimization if
> we can come up with a way to do it that is worth the tradeoffs and
> relatively transparent to network operators and users.

What if rfc2131's transmission delay was changed from SHOULD to
MUST?  (Section 4.1 par. 7).  What if the maximum was set higher than 64
seconds?  Would that alleviate the concerns?

This is where the problem scope in the draft certainly could be clearer,
as to whether we are talking about making dhcp more friendly in the
absence of v4 connectivity (which may certainly be a good idea), or if 
we are talking about the kill switch (which has a lot of problems still).

Dale