Joel - only some operators have decided that they need to allow for the corner case of an IPv6-capable device with no DHCPv6 connected directly to the SP network. CableLabs took the approach of mandating DHCPv6 for any device connected to a cable SP network; the expectation being that a high percentage of users use some kind of home gateway, and those gateways will all include DHCPv6. Inside the home, the home gateway provides RAs configured for the hosts to use SLAAC.
I object to expending IETF energy on extensions to the ND protocol architecture to solve a corner case for which DHCPv6 exists as the designed solution. - Ralph On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:01 PM 9/8/10, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Doug, I am confused by your comments. > > Let me describe how I understand the situation. We claimed, when we crafted > IPv6, that hosts did not need to use DHCP for address assignment. As such, > many host stacks did not use DHCP for address assignment. > > Now, operators wanted to offer IPv6 service. I hope we think that is a good > thing. For residential, they looked at what they could count on from the > hosts. And some of them concluded that they could not count on DHCP, so they > designed an architecture around SLAAC. In other words, they ddi what we told > them to do. > > There are other constraints, and the problems that result are not simple to > solve. But they do not matter for your comment. > You seem to be saying that even though the operators did what we told them, > we should tell them "sorry, you need to redesign your network, and you need > to assume DHCP based address assignment for all devices in the home, even if > you can not count on actually having that work??" > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 9/8/2010 1:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> Ralph, >> >> I use IPv6 in XP so I can confirm your suspicion on both counts. >> IPv6-only is a non-starter for XP. >> >> Suresh, >> >> I understand your goals quite well, which is why I'm opposed to the >> adoption of the draft. :) Since practically Day 1 of the IPv6 effort >> there has been a movement to make SLAAC/RA a full-featured replacement >> for DHCP, by hook or crook. Please note, I am not impugning _your_ >> motives, but I am opposed to your goal. >> >> >> Doug >> >> >> On 09/08/2010 09:17 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: >>> Nit: seems unlikely to me you will have any XP devices running >>> IPv6-only; if my understanding of the situation is correct, such a >>> device requires manual installation of the IPv6 stack and still >>> requires IPv4 for DNS. >>> >>> - Ralph >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2010, at 5:36 PM 9/8/10, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Doug, >>>> >>>> On 10-09-08 02:02 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >>>>> On 09/07/2010 06:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote: >>>>>> 5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including >>>>>> per host prefixes/options) how long before options are added so SLAAC >>>>>> becomes an alternative to DHCPv6 ? >>>>> This is the basis of my opposition to adopting the draft (expressed >>>>> neatly here, as well as by other authors in this thread). >>>> >>>> As I said in my response to Shree, the goal is to provide support for >>>> SLAAC-only IPv6 clients. It is not a practical option to require >>>> support for stateful DHCPv6 for clients that are no longer supported >>>> (e.g. XP). I agree that going forward, stateful DHCPv6 will be a >>>> solution for this problem. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Suresh >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
