This has been a historic issue. Although there was discussions several times, the specification still remain ambiguous. The differences in OS implementations are good proof that we need to do something in IETF.
This document has well described the current standard status and reality operational issues. However, for me, this document fails to suggest what we may do to fix this issue, neither in the gap section or as conclusion. It is clear that part of RFC4862 needs to be updated to make the configuration behavior clear and consistent. For that, this document fails to give a feasible proposal. Maybe, the authors has saved that for another follow up standard track document. Best regards, Sheng >-----Original Message----- >From: renum-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:renum-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Liubing (Leo) >Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM >To: ipv6@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org >Cc: re...@ietf.org >Subject: [renum] SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > >Hi, 6man & v6ops > >We submitted a new draft to discuss the SLAAC/DHCPv6 interaction gaps. > >As we know there are several flags in RA messages regarding with the host >configuration behavior, which are A (Autonomous) flag, M (Managed) flag, >and O (Otherconfig) flag. >For some reason, the host behavior of interpreting the flags is ambiguous in >the standard (mainly RFC4862). I presented a draft discussing M flag behavior >in 6man @ietf84, and there were some feedbacks arguing the same issue. >This draft analyzed all the three flags, and provided test result of current >implementations, it showed the behavior of different mainstream desktop >OSes have varied. The ambiguous and variation might cause operational >problems, such as renumbering (used to discuss in 6renum WG and been >documented in the WG drafts), cold start problem, and management >gaps .etc. > >Your review and comments would be appreciated very much. > >All the best, >Bing > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 PM >> To: Liubing (Leo) >> Cc: rbon...@juniper.net >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Bing Liu and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Filename: draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem >> Revision: 01 >> Title: DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem >> Statement >> Creation date: 2013-02-25 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 12 >> URL: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem- >> 01.txt >> Status: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem >> Htmlized: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 >> Diff: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 >> >> Abstract: >> This document analyzes the host behavior of DHCPv6/SLAAC interaction >> issue. It reviews the standard definition of the host behaviors and >> provides the test results of current mainstream implementations. Some >> potential operational gaps of the interaction are also described. >> >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat > >_______________________________________________ >renum mailing list >re...@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
