> I guess I was thinking that today you have a device, it either is
> configured to do dhcp or is manually configured or just is broken. In
> the v6 world you could just forget M&O and require someone to
> configure (via os config tweaks that already exist for v4 anyway)
> dhcpv6 if anything more c
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
>> ok, so ... as a thought experiment, in v4 you wake up, decide you have
>> no address and are supposed to dhcp for that..
>> in v6, you wake up decide you have no address (and don't know if v4/v6
>> are available)... if you are configured f
> ok, so ... as a thought experiment, in v4 you wake up, decide you have
> no address and are supposed to dhcp for that..
> in v6, you wake up decide you have no address (and don't know if v4/v6
> are available)... if you are configured for v6 dhcp, you make that
> request and get all the 'right'
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> Mark, as I suggested previously, DHCP is useful in cases where you need the
> IP addresses of hosts in a network to be predictable. I have no idea why
> cable systems want DHCP, but I'm saying that IN GENERAL, if h
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Christopher Morrow writes:
>
>> one gotcha with 'dhcp only' is perhaps folks mean: "slaac to signal v6
>> is on-net, but require full config from a dhcpv6 server".
>> How does a host know that v6 is available otherwise? (this may be why
>> s
Mark Smith wrote:
> " 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one.
>If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
>successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution
> unless
>there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of
On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:13:17 +1200
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 2011-05-24 09:56, Mark Smith wrote:
> ...
> > I'm not particularly pro-SLAAC, however I sit back and wonder what is
> > missing from it that makes DHCP essential?
>
> To be blunt, that conversation isn't worth having. S
Mark,
On 2011-05-24 09:56, Mark Smith wrote:
...
> I'm not particularly pro-SLAAC, however I sit back and wonder what is
> missing from it that makes DHCP essential?
To be blunt, that conversation isn't worth having. SLAAC is clearly
essential for isolated or bootstrapping networks to self-confi
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:11:28 -0400
Thomas Narten wrote:
> Christopher Morrow writes:
>
> > one gotcha with 'dhcp only' is perhaps folks mean: "slaac to signal v6
> > is on-net, but require full config from a dhcpv6 server".
> > How does a host know that v6 is available otherwise? (t
Thomas,
On 2011-05-24 09:11, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Christopher Morrow writes:
>
>> one gotcha with 'dhcp only' is perhaps folks mean: "slaac to signal v6
>> is on-net, but require full config from a dhcpv6 server".
>> How does a host know that v6 is available otherwise? (this may be why
>> some
Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Mon, 23 May 2011 23:10:09 +0200 you wrote:
Who says that NUD can't also be used to declare an interface down/
detect router neighbor loss?
Maybe think of a BGP process running over TCP receiving ICMP
unreachables because the local NUD has declared
Christopher Morrow writes:
> one gotcha with 'dhcp only' is perhaps folks mean: "slaac to signal v6
> is on-net, but require full config from a dhcpv6 server".
> How does a host know that v6 is available otherwise? (this may be why
> someone said "you don't really want to do that..')
Well, if I
Who says that NUD can't also be used to declare an interface down/
detect router neighbor loss?
Maybe think of a BGP process running over TCP receiving ICMP
unreachables because the local NUD has declared the neighbor
unreachable. Meanwhile the other BGP partner router is still retrying at
TC
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Thomas - (hoping to fan the discussion) I think operators have expressed the
> desire to operate networks in DHCP-only mode, and the response has been "No,
> you don't really want to operate your networks that way".
>
one gotcha with 'dhcp o
Thomas - (hoping to fan the discussion) I think operators have expressed the
desire to operate networks in DHCP-only mode, and the response has been "No,
you don't really want to operate your networks that way".
If operators came forward again with a strong desire to operate networks using
only
> Is the intention for the new text to relax the requirement for
> auto-configuration?
No. SLAAC remains a MUST. DHCPv6 though is now a SHOULD.
For one thing, DHCP doesn't have an option configure on-link prefixes,
so we still need SLAAC.
What we should have done oh-so-long-ago is ensure that yo
re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-00
I'm afraid have more questions than answers.
Are there any implications for different nodes having different NUD
timeout behavior on a link, and this no longer being symmetrical?
If I can think of two examples..
e.g. 1.
Erik Kline and I wrote up an experience we had with NUD and a broken IPv6
firewall on my home network.
http://sites.google.com/site/ipv6center/icmpv6-is-non-optional
In short, NUD thought that a host which was in the neighbor cache really wasn't
available (due to incorrect FW blocking at the h
Erik,
I have seen NUD packets dropped during congestion, and for traffic to
periodically drop out for re-resolution. I agree with the goal of making
NUD more robust. However, there may be other approaches besides
retransmitting more times.
- Wes
On 5/23/11 2:46 PM, "Erik Nordmark" wrote:
>
This draft proposes to change the requirement that NUD can not
retransmit more than three times, so that NUD can be more robust against
temporary network outages.
Comments?
Erik
Original Message
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-00
WG,
I believe this version is ready to advance to the IESG.
>From the changes section:
>17.1. Appendix: Changes from -09 to -10
>
>1. With changes in requirements for IPsec and Routing Headers,
>clarified language regarding processing of unknown options, and
>removed p
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Node Requirements
Author(s) : Ed Jankiewicz
John Loughney
22 matches
Mail list logo
