So Rich, I'll ask. What would you like to see happen? - Bernie
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Woundy, Richard > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:39 PM > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Thomas Narten > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: purpose of m/o bit > > >All of this, coupled with the fact that, AFAIK, no OS implements > DHCPv6, means that there is essentially zero experience with DHCPv6 in > the operational community. This means that at this time, > there is little > point in asking the operational community what should happen > with the M > and O bits. > > Or perhaps this could be the ideal time to ask the > operational community > what should happen with the M and O bits -- before software developers > go too far down a particular direction without operator guidance? > > Some of us operators do more than just configure and test vendor > products. > > -- Rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Iljitsch van Beijnum > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:43 AM > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: [dhcwg] Re: purpose of m/o bit > > > [Crossposted to dhcwg even though I'm not on that list, as people > there may be able to add some useful insights.] > > On 24-mei-2005, at 16:45, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > I wonder if there is key question here that the community > has simply > > not agreed on (yet), and that that question is at the heart of all > > this "confusion". > > > Does the community feel that operators need RA bits that > > control/indicate whether a client is to invoke DHC? That > is, is there > > a need for the sys admin to signal to client whether DHC is to be > > invoked? > > By a strange coincidence, I spent most of the day yesterday taking > several DHCPv6 implementations for a test drive, for reasons > unrelated to this discussion. > > These implementations are: KAME DHCP6, the unnamed Linux fork of the > KAME implementation at http://dhcpv6.sourceforge.net/ and the Cisco > IOS implemenation. > > Conclusion: the Cisco implementation is incomplete (no address > assignment) and the other two are too immature to be of much use. > > I'm impressed with the prefix delegation functionality, but as > before, the prospect of running such a complex protocol just to > optain a domain search list and some DNS resolvers makes me very > uncomfortable. > > All of this, coupled with the fact that, AFAIK, no OS implements > DHCPv6, means that there is essentially zero experience with DHCPv6 > in the operational community. This means that at this time, there is > little point in asking the operational community what should happen > with the M and O bits. > > In other words: this is not the time declare the bits useless and > remove them. > > > Second, is it important that such a signal be honored by clients? > > (That is, if clients end up mostly ignoring the flags, does their > > presence become useless?) > > Depends. There are three possible ways this can play out: > > - the DNS resolver issue is solved in a way that doesn't requite > DHCP, so most people don't don't run DHCPv6 at all, others > run it all > the time -> no bits necessary > - the DNS resolver issue isn't solved in another way, so everyone > runs some form of DHCPv6 all the time -> no bits necessary > - DHCP provides benefits but some people are reluctant to use it -> > helpful to know whether to bother running DHCPv6 > > > For example, should the sys admin be able to say "do not run DHC, > > doing so wastes local resources and won't get you any config info"? > > (And should that be honored by clients?) > > I think it's good to recognize that in the past, there have often > been security issues with non-text based UDP protocols, so knowing > there is no need to run DHCP and then not running it would be good > security. > > > Fundamentally, it is only the access network that has knowledge of > > whether running DHC is useful. Thus, by default, clients (arguably) > > can't know whether running DHC is useful, so by default they shold > > invoke DHC (unless the sys admin signals "don't invoke DHC"). > > > Or (switching the argument), by default, client should not > invoke DHC, > > > unless the local sys admin indicates doing so is appropriate. > > There isn't really a difference here, except for what happens when > there are no RAs. > > I would be interested in hearing viewpoints on the usefulness of > running DHCPv6 even though the hints indicate that there is > no need to. > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
