Thomas... On May 13, 2011, at 9:37 AM 5/13/11, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Per a previous thread, there are indications that the WG may now be > willing to recommend that DHCPv6 be a SHOULD for all hosts. This is > based on the following rationale: > > Thomas Narten <nar...@us.ibm.com> writes: > >> I personally would support having DHCP be a SHOULD rather than a >> MAY. The justification in my mind is that if you want the network >> operator to have the choice of whether they want to use Stateless >> addrconf OR DHCP, they only have that choice of devices widely >> implement both. > > This was supported by some others, particularly now that it is clear > there are more implementations of DHCPv6, e.g.: > > Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> writes: > >> While my personal view is that DHCPv6 won't be used for host >> configuration in cable/DSL deployments (except for provisioning the >> prefix to the home router), it appears that DHCPv6 is being widely >> implemented in host OS's because it is needed some environments. >> There are enough variations in deployment models that a host >> developer will need to support both. > >> Based on this, I think a SHOULD is OK. > > Let me propose the following change be made to the node requirements > document: > > OLD/Current: > > DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a > network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router > Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration > of addresses via stateless autoconfiguration is more widely > implemented in hosts than address configuration via DHCP. However, > some environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the > configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware > of what operating environment their devices will be deployed. Hosts > MAY implement address configuration via DHCP. > > New: > > <t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain and > configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the > configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements, > DHCPv6 or both. Some operators have indicated that they do > not intend to support stateless address autoconfiguration on > their networks and will require all address assignments be > made through DHCPv6. On such networks, devices that support > only stateless address autoconfiguration will be unable to > automatically configure addresses. Consequently all hosts > SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCP.</t> > > > Is this acceptable? Looks fine and appropriate to me, with one nit: s/DHCP/DHCPv6/ in the last line. - Ralph > Please respond yes or no. Given the WG's previous hesitation to having > DHCPv6 be a SHOULD, it is important that we get a clear indication of > whether or not the WG supports this change. > > Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
