Frank, On 13/12/2012 00:25, Xiayangsong wrote: > Hi Brian > > Probably, I am missing something. > which documents say " all IPv6 nodes are required to support SLAAC "?
RFC 6434 says this: 5.9.2. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration - RFC 4862 Hosts MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration as defined in [RFC4862]. Configuration of static address(es) may be supported as well. Nodes that are routers MUST be able to generate link-local addresses as described in [RFC4862]. ... 12. Router-Specific Functionality ... 12.2. Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 - RFC 4861 Sending Router Advertisements and processing Router Solicitations MUST be supported. It seems clear to me that SLAAC and RA are required functionalities. If you can justify a scenario where RAs do not include PIO, you can justify your proposal. But you cannot say there is no SLAAC. > Just I mentioned in previous email, SLAAC is optional WiMAX deployment. That is another problem. Brian > > Thank > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:40 PM > To: Xiayangsong > Cc: Ole Trøan; Sheng Jiang; <dh...@ietf.org> WG; IPv6 List > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6" > > But all IPv6 nodes are required to support SLAAC and all > routers are required to generate RAs. What is the meaning > of "no SLAAC"? > > Regards > Brian > > On 12/12/2012 10:53, Xiayangsong wrote: >> Hi Ole >> >> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about. >> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC. >> >> Could you elaborate your viewpoints? >> >> Thanks >> Frank >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dhcwg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Ole Tr?an >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:10 PM >> To: Sheng Jiang >> Cc: <dh...@ietf.org> WG; IPv6 List >> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6" >> >> Sheng, >> >>>>>> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a >>>>>> DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed. >>>>>> ND is required for router discovery, neighbour discovery etc anyway. and >>>>>> a >>>>>> router on the link must be configured >>>>>> with the onlink prefix regardless. >>>>>> >>>>>> while we can clearly make this work, I don't think it is justified to >>>>>> create a >>>>>> duplicate mechanism for prefix discovery. >>>>>> section 3.2 RFC1958. >>>>> Hi, Ole, >>>>> >>>>> Assuming all networks are using SLAAC is not right. >>>>> >>>>> In WiMAX NWG IPv6 spec, Revision 6, see the attachment. >>>>> >>>>> Stateful (DHCPv6) address configuration is supported. >>>>> Check Sections 5.11.11.4 and 5.11.12.2. >>>>> >>>>> Also, BBF document TR-177 supports stateful address configuration using >>>> DHCPv6, check Section 4.2. >>>>> I also know a few ISP desire to use DHCPv6 in their networks. >>>> I make no assumption that all networks are using SLAAC for address >>>> assignment. >>>> >>>> there is no conflict between using ND for prefix assignment and DHCPv6 for >>>> address assignment. >>> So, how can you get host generated addresses, like EUI64 address, CGA, or >>> Privacy address? Particular for CGA, host has to get prefix first, then use >>> prefix as part of input to generate host identifier. >>> >>> Or you are saying in DHCPv6-managed network, you still use ND to assign >>> prefix. I don't think that deployment is good idea. >> that's how the IPv6 protocols are designed. from the beginning. that's how >> all DHCPv6 managed networks run today. >> I don't see the problem? >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dhcwg mailing list >> dh...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
