Timothy, On May 13, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Timothy E. Enos wrote:
> Hi Thomas, > > Thanks for posting this. > > IMO, a SHOULD is not required in a SOHO environment (which is arguably not a > corner case for deployment). MAY works. > > Just as some environments may require the use of DHCPv6, some environments > may not. > > For those that require use of DHCPv6, they MAY use it. > > I think at least in the SOHO context, it's really the local administrative > policies (not hard and fast technical factors) that determine the (lack of) > need for DHCPv6. > > All the above said, my personal opinion is that DHCPv6 does not need to > elevated to SHOULD from MAY for the node requirements spec. If the group > decides to the contrary I can certainly accept that. I think all we are trying to say that there are a wide range of deployment models, that we recommend that hosts SHOULD support both. We are not making any statement about what should be used in a particular deployment. Or at least, that's my thinking and why I support the SHOULD. Also, why I suggested changing the text to not talk about "operators". Bob > > My $0.02, > > Tim > Ps 127:3-5 > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Narten" <nar...@us.ibm.com> > To: <ipv6@ietf.org> > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:37 AM > Subject: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD > > >> 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? >> >> 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
