Interesting point Bob raises. Thomas,
Is the intention for the new text to relax the requirement for auto-configuration? The new DHCPv6 text should be in addition to support for stateless auto-configuration to ensure other deployment models are supported. John ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net ========================================= On 5/13/11 11:55 AM, "Bob Hinden" <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: >Thomas, > >On May 13, 2011, at 6:37 AM, 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? >> >> 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. > >While I support changing the requirement to a SHOULD, I would prefer the >text to be something like: > > <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. There will be a wide range of IPv6 deployment models > and differences in address assignment requirements. Consequently >all hosts > SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCP.</t> > >It's not just about what some operators may or may not do. For example >enterprises, governments, etc. will also have specific requirements. > >Bob > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
