Sorry for jump to this discussion thread late.
The route policy shall be well considered by the operator/network. If we
discuss confliction, it is more like to be the network configuration that
may appear for MIF host rather than the mechanism of DHCPv6 or RA. Even we
only use RIO, the confliction
On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
for clarification, that was not my proposal. my suggestion was to merge all
information within one "provisioning domain".
unsure if we will end up with provisioning domain = link, as detection of
multiple provisioning domains on a single link may not
>> How do you propose this get handled?
>
> I think the right way to handle this is the way that the MIF working group
> has proposed: treat each provisioning domain separately. Do not try to
> merge information you have no basis for assuming is valid across provisioning
> domains (which is a
my take: the MIF problem statement draft about to be published as RFC)
discusses the various scenarios. probably more exists. But the issue of
receiving config info from multiple sources is not specific to dhcpv6. it is
related to any protocol sending config info. so it is a problem of pppv4,
p
On Nov 21, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Isn't this what DHC already does? I.e., you run DHCP on two
> interfaces, and get conflicting information.
I don't know what the antecedent to "this" was intended to be.
> The existing DHCP specs are silent on this, and the DHC WG has never
> be
Ted Lemon writes:
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 9:59 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> > why not just merge all the information received?
> > e.g. if you get DNS server over DHCP and RA, use all.
> > if you get addresses via SLAAC and DHCP, you use all...
> Because "just merge" is essentially equivalent to "jus
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 19:28 +0800, Ole Troan wrote:
> refer to Mark's mail on search lists.
Why? It has no bearing on your question. You asked for things which
could not be merged. I gave you an example. It wasn't a recommendation.
> huh? that's exactly how router discovery in IPv6 works.
> put a
Karl,
>> can you give examples of what information cannot be merged?
>> certainly a default router list can be merged...
>
> If one source says that the domain search list is "a.com b.com c.com"
> and another source says it is "c.com a.com b.com", how can you merge the
> search lists?
>
> Or if
Karl,
>> can you give examples of what information cannot be merged?
>> certainly a default router list can be merged...
>
> If one source says that the domain search list is "a.com b.com c.com"
> and another source says it is "c.com a.com b.com", how can you merge the
> search lists?
refer to M
On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:55 PM, "Mohacsi Janos" wrote:
> I think in reality it will not be very easy to implement all these things.
> Some Operating System might implement RA(SEND), some the Secure DHCP, some
> none of above. . The operator should operate the network consistently: - same
> informa
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Hui Deng wrote:
Hello 6MAN and DHCP,
Especially thanks Wes Beebee, Hemant Singh, Brian Carpenter, Alex and Ted's
discussion.
MIF is going to discuss the confliction between RA and DHCP on tuesday
afternoon MIF session (15:20-17:00)
the author Tomasz has propose bel
flict.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:05 PM
To: Karl Auer; IETF IPv6
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Conflict between RA and DHCP in MIF case
+1 to Karl's emails.
Hemant
---
+1 to Karl's emails.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karl
Auer
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:05 PM
To: IETF IPv6
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Conflict between RA and DHCP in MIF case
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 14:27 +1100,
In message <1321243491.2514.99.camel@karl>, Karl Auer writes:
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 14:27 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Anyone depending apon search lists that they did not set already
> > has a broken configuration.
>
> I didn't say people should do these things, just that there are things
>
On 11/13/2011 20:04, Karl Auer wrote:
> I didn't say people should do these things, just that there are things
> that *can be* delivered via RA and that *can be* delivered via DHCP, and
> that *can conflict*.
Given that this is a configuration error by definition, why can't we
just say that the be
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 14:27 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Anyone depending apon search lists that they did not set already
> has a broken configuration.
I didn't say people should do these things, just that there are things
that *can be* delivered via RA and that *can be* delivered via DHCP, and
th
In message <1321238859.2514.73.camel@karl>, Karl Auer writes:
>
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:27 +0800, Ole Troan wrote:
> > can you give examples of what information cannot be merged?
> > certainly a default router list can be merged...
>
> If one source says that the domain search list is "a.com
On Nov 14, 2011, at 10:35 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> wouldn't they continue to do it wrong if we were to specify a default
> "policy"?
> I'm in the camp of "use all the information you've got". the prefer one of
> the other by default, is heading down 3484 country, and that hasn't been a
> pleasa
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:27 +0800, Ole Troan wrote:
> can you give examples of what information cannot be merged?
> certainly a default router list can be merged...
If one source says that the domain search list is "a.com b.com c.com"
and another source says it is "c.com a.com b.com", how can you
>> isn't this what a host does anyway? if it has more than one router on the
>> link?
>
> Yes, and they reliably do it wrong. This is why we have a MIF working group!
> :)
wouldn't they continue to do it wrong if we were to specify a default "policy"?
I'm in the camp of "use all the informati
On Nov 14, 2011, at 10:30 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> isn't this what a host does anyway? if it has more than one router on the
> link?
Yes, and they reliably do it wrong. This is why we have a MIF working group!
:)
IETF IPv6 w
Ted,
>> why not just merge all the information received?
>> e.g. if you get DNS server over DHCP and RA, use all.
>> if you get addresses via SLAAC and DHCP, you use all...
>
> Because "just merge" is essentially equivalent to "just walk across the river
> without your feet getting wet.". If yo
Karl,
>> why not just merge all the information received?
>> e.g. if you get DNS server over DHCP and RA, use all.
>> if you get addresses via SLAAC and DHCP, you use all...
>
> It's about *conflict*, I think.
>
> I.e., when the information coming from RA and DHCP cannot be "merged" -
> for exa
On Nov 14, 2011, at 9:59 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> why not just merge all the information received?
> e.g. if you get DNS server over DHCP and RA, use all.
> if you get addresses via SLAAC and DHCP, you use all...
Because "just merge" is essentially equivalent to "just walk across the river
witho
On Nov 14, 2011, at 9:46 AM, "Hui Deng" wrote:
> Finally, there is such thing as secure DHCP, so if
> both RA and DHCP are secure, prefer SEND. I must admit that I never
> heard about any realistic deployments of secure DHCP, but it will change
> over time.
This doesn't agree with the list of ste
> MIF is going to discuss the confliction between RA and DHCP on tuesday
> afternoon MIF session (15:20-17:00)
This clashes with SOFTWIRE. Can you do it in the 17:10 session?
Regards
Brian
On 2011-11-14 14:46, Hui Deng wrote:
> Hello 6MAN and DHCP,
>
> Especially thanks *Wes Beebee*, Hemant
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 09:46 +0800, Hui Deng wrote:
> a) RA vs DHCP => prefer DHCP
> b) RA(SEND) vs DHCP => prefer RA
> c) RA vs secure DHCP => prefer DHCP
> d) RA(SEND) vs secure DHCP => prefer DHCP
Can this be summarised as "prefer DHCP except over RA+SEND"?
My apologies if this has already been
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 09:59 +0800, Ole Troan wrote:
> why not just merge all the information received?
> e.g. if you get DNS server over DHCP and RA, use all.
> if you get addresses via SLAAC and DHCP, you use all...
It's about *conflict*, I think.
I.e., when the information coming from RA and D
Hui,
why not just merge all the information received?
e.g. if you get DNS server over DHCP and RA, use all.
if you get addresses via SLAAC and DHCP, you use all...
cheers,
Ole
On Nov 14, 2011, at 9:46 , Hui Deng wrote:
> Hello 6MAN and DHCP,
>
> Especially thanks Wes Beebee, Hemant Singh, Br
Hello 6MAN and DHCP,
Especially thanks *Wes Beebee*, Hemant Singh, Brian Carpenter, Alex and
Ted's discussion.
MIF is going to discuss the confliction between RA and DHCP on tuesday
afternoon MIF session (15:20-17:00)
the author Tomasz has propose below resolution:
The problem is about potential
30 matches
Mail list logo
