Shane Kerr wrote:
> I know there's a lot of anti-DHCP sentiment, especially in the IPv6
> crowd. I think it is misplaced; DHCP is at worst a necessary evil, and
> at best an elegant solution to the problem space where it sits.
Right.
The problem is that so called "stateless autoconfiguration" ha
On Aug 21, 2007, at 05:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
[...] having multiple protocols to do one thing is a bad idea, right?
Yes, but having one protocol to do multiple things in cross-cutting
problem domains is a bad idea, too.
We need DHCP - in IPv6 as much as in IPv4 - so can we please let
this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
james woodyatt wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 09:10, David W. Hankins wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:51:09PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>>>
>>> In any event, I hear that some DHCPv6 guys are planning to make a new
>>> draft that covers this
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Unless anyone can mention a lot of potential IPv6 deployments that will
> deploy IPv6 without a router sending RA, it's not even worth discussing
> the subject.
I pointed it out several times in IPv6 related WGs that RA work poorly
over links with unreliable multic
On 18-aug-2007, at 17:37, Ralph Droms wrote:
Therefore there is no need to provide a prefix length with an
assigned IPv6 address, whether that address is assigned through
SLAAC, DHCPv6, manual assignment or divine intervention.
Obviously we're not making progress here so I'm stopping my
r
urday, August 18, 2007 8:26 PM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
James - in the abstract, in my opinion the inference is that a prefix
cannot be described as on-link unless it is advertised in a PIO.
Question for t
James - in the abstract, in my opinion the inference is that a prefix
cannot be described as on-link unless it is advertised in a PIO.
Question for the list: is there a functional difference between an RA
that includes a PIO advertising a prefix P with neither the L nor A
bits set (no on-li
Where you configure a mask with an address is an accident of the UI.
Where you use the mask is based on the protocol design. The prefix
length is not used in any way with an address assigned to an
interface. The only reason a mask is specified with an address in
IPv4 is to convey on-link
On 2007-08-17T06:59:56-0700, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
>> transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set the
>> host will not initiate DHCPv6.
>
> That doesn't make much sense; if a node doesn't hear
> RAs, why w
17, 2007 4:09 PM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> To stop unnecessary DHCP traffic. [...]
I think what we're seeing here is a vocal faction of the
On Aug 17, 2007, at 13:22, James Carlson wrote:
james woodyatt writes:
into ManagedFlag. If the value of ManagedFlag changes from
FALSE to
TRUE, and the host is not already running the stateful address
autoconfigu
james woodyatt writes:
> >into ManagedFlag. If the value of ManagedFlag changes from FALSE to
> >TRUE, and the host is not already running the stateful address
> >autoconfiguration protocol, the host should invoke the
On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
To stop unnecessary DHCP traffic. [...]
I think what we're seeing here is a vocal faction of the community
who believe that DHCP discovery multicasts are always necessary,
whether RA is present or not, and whether M=0 or M=1, despite t
On 17-aug-2007, at 18:41, James Woodyatt wrote:
One wonders why they would bother waiting in the first place given
the significant probability that DHCP service is deployed without
any RA whatsoever.
So, it seems natural to ask... what good is the M bit anyway?
To stop unnecessary DHCP t
Jinmei-san - I fully agree that it would be a good idea to hold off
on this discussion until an I-D is published.
One small correction...the originators of the discussion about "rogue
RAs" are network admins who have real-world experience with IPv6
deployments. I wouldn't consider them as
Fred L; Iljitsch van Beijnum; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> ipv6@ietf.org; JINMEI Tatuya /
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
>
> Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> > Thanks, James. I agree with Fred then that a node can try
> DHCPv6. But
> &g
, Fred L; Iljitsch van Beijnum; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ipv6@ietf.org; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> Thanks, James. I agree with Fred then that a node can try DHCPv6. But
> now how does the node get a prefix
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> Thanks, James. I agree with Fred then that a node can try DHCPv6. But
> now how does the node get a prefix length? As you are saying, some
> manual or static configuration can be used. I certainly don't like the
> host to assume any prefix length in this scenario. S
You're not the first person to ask that question...
- Ralph
On Aug 17, 2007, at Aug 17, 2007,12:41 PM, James Woodyatt wrote:
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:59 AM, "Templin, Fred L"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede
DHCPv6
transactions becaus
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:59 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set the
host
will not initiate DHCPv6.
That doesn't make much sense; if a node doesn't
van Beijnum; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ipv6@ietf.org; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> I have not found any information in the ND RFC's nor DHCPv6 RFC that
> say a node can initiate DHCPv6 if node doesn
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> I have not found any information in the ND RFC's nor DHCPv6 RFC that say
> a node can initiate DHCPv6 if node doesn't receive any RA. I need to see
> explicit text in some document to accept what you said below.
It does say this. See RFC 2462 section 4:
The ne
OTECTED]
> Hemant
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:00 AM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JINMEI Tatuya /
> Subject: RE:
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:00 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Iljitsch van Beijnum
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
> How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always p
> How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
> transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set the
host
> will not initiate DHCPv6.
That doesn't make much sense; if a node doesn't hear
RAs, why wouldn't it try DHCPv6 before giving up?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 17-aug-2007, at 1:38, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
The problem that I have is that if an address without a prefix length
becomes available, what do I do?
How can that happen with a DHCPv6 host? RA will always precede DHCPv6
transactions because unless the host sees an RA with M bit set t
atuya / ; David W. Hankins; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On 17-aug-2007, at 0:51, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> OK, Iljitsch. But hasn't Bernie already responded to this one? What if
> prefix length is fat-fingere
On 17-aug-2007, at 0:51, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
OK, Iljitsch. But hasn't Bernie already responded to this one? What if
prefix length is fat-fingered at the DHCPv6 server by the admin and a
length L1 is sent in DHCPv6 messages but the router RA sent a PIO for
the same prefix with prefix le
6?
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:42 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ; David W. Hankins; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On 1
On 16-aug-2007, at 21:35, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
RA supports all
of prefix information and on-link determination, so why have DHCPv6
duplicate that functionality?
That's not the discussion we were having. The discussion we were
having (or at least, _I_ was having) was whether it's a g
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 05:55:39PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> I'm not an "expert" on the WIDE implementation (any more), but I know
> the implementation well enough that I can clarify the points, so...
>
> Your understanding about the Confirm message processing of the WIDE
> server is co
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 08:53:10AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> I don't see how the server could possibly construct a valid Reply
> message otherwise. It needs to include IA Address options, and those
The server does not include IA_*'s nor IAADDRs beneath them. It
only MUST include a server-ide
Hankins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:33:16AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > and it needs to be able to Confirm the use o
2007 3:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:16:31PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Ole Troan writes:
> > >> If you delegate a prefix, then you route to the prefix -- best
match.
> >
ns about on- vs. off-link
determination.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:56 AM
To: David W. Hankins
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
At Wed,
David W. Hankins writes:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:33:16AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > > and it needs to be able to Confirm the use of
> > > addresses, which it may not have allocated.
> >
> > That doesn't make sense to me. The DHCPv6 Confirm message is for
> > confirming an address lease.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:33:16AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > and it needs to be able to Confirm the use of
> > addresses, which it may not have allocated.
>
> That doesn't make sense to me. The DHCPv6 Confirm message is for
> confirming an address lease. If the server hasn't allocated the
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:16:31PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Ole Troan writes:
> > >> If you delegate a prefix, then you route to the prefix -- best match.
> > >
> > > Yes, but how does that route get in the table, and what next-hop is
> > > set? You have to know your customer's address eventu
At Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:51:40 -0700,
"David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think that you will find realistically, DHCPv6 servers will know
> > > prefix lengths.
> >
> > None that I've worked with (including the WIDE server) seems to care.
> > What's needed are assignment ranges, n
Ole Troan writes:
> >> > Even if you delegate a prefix, you still need to know your customer's
> >> > address so that you might route packets to them.
> >>
> >> I don't understand that.
> >>
> >> If you delegate a prefix, then you route to the prefix -- best match.
> >
> > Yes, but how does that
>> > Even if you delegate a prefix, you still need to know your customer's
>> > address so that you might route packets to them.
>>
>> I don't understand that.
>>
>> If you delegate a prefix, then you route to the prefix -- best match.
>
> Yes, but how does that route get in the table, and what n
On Aug 15, 2007, at 06:29, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
DHCPv6 is useful when MSO's want to control which CPE's get
addresses and which do not. It provides a simple way to do access
control on a network.
EAP is a better way to do that. DHCPv6 is more useful for
controlling which CPE get
David W. Hankins writes:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:54:13AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > > That may very well be, but if DHCP servers give out addresses, then
> > > this particular can of worms is already open and you have to deal
> > > with it.
> >
> > If they provide addresses (they nee
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:54:13AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > That may very well be, but if DHCP servers give out addresses, then
> > this particular can of worms is already open and you have to deal
> > with it.
>
> If they provide addresses (they needn't do so), then they need to be
> c
hey're not supposed to.
- Wes
-Original Message-
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:42 PM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: prefix length determination for DHCPv6
On Aug 13, 2007, at 09:10, David W
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> IPv6 specifications and implementations without DHCPv6 have been
> around for the better part of a decade,
Given that IPv6 has never really been deployed, we should rather use
OSI, because it has longer history of specification and implementation.
> so requiring D
On Aug 13, 2007, at 09:10, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:51:09PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達
哉 wrote:
In any event, I hear that some DHCPv6 guys are planning to make a new
draft that covers this topic. So I think it's better to hold off for
now and wait for the document, ra
On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:51:09PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> In any event, I hear that some DHCPv6 guys are planning to make a new
> draft that covers this topic. So I think it's better to hold off for
> now and wait for the document, rather than continue this thread
> with keeping poss
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
> You shouldn't.
>
> You SHOULD remember that ND is *NOT* mandately for IPv6.
just for clarification - which part of ND (RS/RA, NS/NA, or something
else), and under which condition?
itojun
IETF IPv6 working gro
Leino, Tammy wrote:
> I appreciate everyone's comments and advice. I am glad to see such
> passion for IPv6 and support of people in need.
You shouldn't.
You SHOULD remember that ND is *NOT* mandately for IPv6.
ND is, despite a lot of effort to fix it in some limited cases (an
obvious example
At Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:55:18 -0500,
"Leino, Tammy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I add an address in my OS, I add a network route according to the
> prefix length of the address so I know that other nodes with this same
> prefix are on-link. I don't route based on a source address. I find a
52 matches
Mail list logo
