Following up on Bernie's comments about DHCPv6 for non-address
configuration information, take a look at RFC 3736, "stateless DHCP
Service for IPv6" (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3736.txt) for
a summary of the minimal implementation and deployment needed for
DHCPv6 as a complement t
On 13-aug-2007, at 19:25, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
DHCPv6 messages are generally small and don't require a lot of back
and
further. I really don't understand why people are objecting to one or
two request/reply exchanges (only the request of which is multicast).
Sure, it be nice if there we
On 13-aug-2007, at 17:38, James Carlson wrote:
For better or for worse, the notion of a subnet mask
going along with an interface address is deeply ingrained in the way
IP is implemented. Separating the two for no apparent reason is a bad
idea.
There's a problem with that idea. There's no gu
I guess we can agree to disagree.
I think fundamentally keeping the two things completely different will
be a far better way for people to think about this. There are
implementations that have assumed a /64 for DHCP assigned (or manually
configured) addresses when no prefix information was availab
DHCP server address would be useless because clients don't generally
unicast to the server/relay (and aren't allowed to unless the server has
sent a server-unicast option). And, if the server isn't on-link, unless
the client has an address of sufficient scope, it couldn't communicate
with the serve
Leino, Tammy wrote:
Iljitsch, thank you for your comprehensive remarks. I think my
mistake was in believing an IPv6 router does not have to be
configured to send RAs, but the DHCPv6 server could serve the same
purpose as the RAs. It appears DHCPv6 was meant to supplement RAs.
As an embedded de
As Bernie said, having two ways of doing the same thing, for example
having
both the RA and DHCPv6 determine the default gateway or on-link
information,
leads to both confusion and conflicts. Which one do you believe? If
you're
talking about security, both RA's and DHCPv6 can be spoofed - so a
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> On 11-aug-2007, at 1:39, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
> > The configuration of addresses for an interface MUST NOT be tied to
> > the
> > configuration of prefix information for routing.
>
> I disagree. For better or for worse, the notion of a subnet mask
> going
I agree with all your remarks Iljitsch, and I believe my customers feel
the same way as you.
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:56 AM
To: Bernie Volz ((volz))
Cc: Leino, Tammy; ipv6@ietf.org; John Jason Brzozowski (JJMB
Iljitsch, thank you for your comprehensive remarks. I think my mistake
was in believing an IPv6 router does not have to be configured to send
RAs, but the DHCPv6 server could serve the same purpose as the RAs. It
appears DHCPv6 was meant to supplement RAs.
As an embedded developer, there is a lo
On 11-aug-2007, at 1:09, Leino, Tammy wrote:
The reason I am not assuming there is a router on link configured to
send RAs with prefix options is because I don't see the point of
DHCPv6
configuring addresses if a router is configured to do the same job.
:-)
Since the prefix length is carr
On 11-aug-2007, at 1:39, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
Interface addresses are completely SEPARATE from routing information.
Please do NOT confuse the two. This has been a source of confusion for
many IPv6 implementors who know IPv4.
The configuration of addresses for an interface MUST NOT be ti
12 matches
Mail list logo
