On Jun 1, 2011, at 4:42 PM 6/1/11, Thomas Narten wrote: > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Ray, > >> Without going into details: how about turning this into >> draft-hunter-v6ops-something and having the debate over in v6ops? > >> I think that would be useful, personally. > > Actually, let me suggest something else. > > Before spending a whole lot of time on this topic, is there anyone > else who thinks there is a problem here that needs solving? The last > thing we (as a group) need to do is spend time on a non-problem. > > Personally, I don't see the issue here. I think the problem as stated > is a non-problem. And to be honest, this is the first time I have > heard anyone suggest what you describe is a real problem. So I wonder > whether anyone else thinks there is a problem here that needs fixing.
I don't think there is a problem worth fixing. > > To the point: > >>> Ray Hunter wrote: >>>> It's definitely going to become an operational FAQ, unless it is very >>>> clear whether/how a network operator can force equivalent use of >>>> DHCPv4 static address assignment for both source and destination >>>> addresses via DHCPv6 (possibly by turning off SLAAC for assignment of >>>> GUA on an interface via a flag, or via RFC3484 bis), and how to >>>> achieve this effect for all nodes on a link, without resorting to >>>> local configuration. So I may as well be the first to ask. > > A fine way to deal with this problem is not advertise any prefixes in > RAs for stateless address autoconfiguration. The network operator is > in control here. They decide how/whether DHCP and/or SLAAC is used. I recently wrote: Use of SLAAC is controlled by the A bit in the Prefix Information option. If the A bit is zero, the host will not configure an address on the receiving interface using SLAAC. The M bit in an RA gives a hint that DHCPv6 service is available. The host behavior is not entirely controlled by the M bit; a host can choose to run DHCPv6 independent of the setting of the M bit. A reasonable host might not bother with DHCPv6 if the M bit is 0; at the same time, a reasonable host might go ahead with DHCPv6 if it doesn't receive any Prefix Information options with the A bit set to one. > > Why is this not sufficient? Sounds sufficient to me... - Ralph > > Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
