On 1-okt-2007, at 19:35, Brian Dickson wrote:
I'm a bit confused by the above. It might be terminology, or your
use of it, but either way, it would be helpful to give some
examples of IOS server(s) and IOS client(s), doing DHCPv6 vanilla,
and DHCPv6 with PD.
You mean something like this?
Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification...
- Ralph
On Oct 1, 2007, at Oct 1, 2007,1:23 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1-okt-2007, at 19:09, Ralph Droms wrote:
Didn't you write recently that you knew of no DHCPv6
implementations when you wrote your book?
I don't think so. I probably said
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Brian Dickson wrote:
> Ralph Droms wrote:
> > Cisco's CNR and IOS DHCPv6 servers both implement PD. The IOS DHCPv6
> > client implements PD, and can automatically assign /64s from a
> > delegated prefix to downstream interfaces.
> I'm a bit confused by the above. It might b
Ralph Droms wrote:
Cisco's CNR and IOS DHCPv6 servers both implement PD. The IOS DHCPv6
client implements PD, and can automatically assign /64s from a
delegated prefix to downstream interfaces.
I'm a bit confused by the above. It might be terminology, or your use of
it, but either way, it woul
On 1-okt-2007, at 19:09, Ralph Droms wrote:
Didn't you write recently that you knew of no DHCPv6
implementations when you wrote your book?
I don't think so. I probably said no implementations that do address
assignment.
> ???
>
> Do you mean: can it assign interface addresses from the delegated
> prefixes via DHCPv6 on downstream interfaces as well?
Let's say that I'm a requesting router, and all I need is
a /128. Shouldn't I be able to ask a delegating router for
a /128, and then assign it to one of my downst
???
Do you mean: can it assign interface addresses from the delegated
prefixes via DHCPv6 on downstream interfaces as well?
- Ralph
On Oct 1, 2007, at Oct 1, 2007,1:12 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Cisco's CNR and IOS DHCPv6 servers both implement PD. The IOS DHCPv6
client implements PD
> Cisco's CNR and IOS DHCPv6 servers both implement PD. The IOS DHCPv6
> client implements PD, and can automatically assign /64s from a
> delegated prefix to downstream interfaces.
That's good. Can it also do /128's?
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Didn't you write recently that you knew of no DHCPv6 implementations
when you wrote your book?
- Ralph
On Oct 1, 2007, at Oct 1, 2007,12:21 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1-okt-2007, at 16:01, Templin, Fred L wrote:
I would be interested to know who has implemented and/or
is using DHC
UAN HUARTE FEDERICO; Iljitsch van Beijnum; IPV6 Mailing List
Subject: Re: Results: Straw poll: autoconf vs manual conf
Ralph Droms writes:
Cisco has had DHCPv6 (client, server and relay agent) in IOS since
2003. The first TAHI DHCPv6 testing was also in 2003.
Results from
the interoperability
On 1-okt-2007, at 16:01, Templin, Fred L wrote:
I would be interested to know who has implemented and/or
is using DHCPv6 prefix delegation (RFC3633), because I'm
seeing some interesting use cases for it.
When I was writing my book ( http://www.runningipv6.net/ ) in 2005 I
did some testing be
Templin, Fred L writes:
> I would be interested to know who has implemented and/or
> is using DHCPv6 prefix delegation (RFC3633), because I'm
> seeing some interesting use cases for it.
Yep. And I know I haven't implemented it. ;-}
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROT
ay, October 01, 2007 5:30 AM
> To: Ralph Droms
> Cc: DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO; Iljitsch van Beijnum; IPV6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Results: Straw poll: autoconf vs manual conf
>
> Ralph Droms writes:
> > Cisco has had DHCPv6 (client, server and relay agent) in IOS since
>
Ralph Droms writes:
> Cisco has had DHCPv6 (client, server and relay agent) in IOS since
> 2003. The first TAHI DHCPv6 testing was also in 2003. Results from
> the interoperability testing of several servers and clients was used
> to improve the DHCPv6 spec (RFC 3315), published in July 200
Cisco has had DHCPv6 (client, server and relay agent) in IOS since
2003. The first TAHI DHCPv6 testing was also in 2003. Results from
the interoperability testing of several servers and clients was used
to improve the DHCPv6 spec (RFC 3315), published in July 2003. The
dibbler project DH
Alain Durand wrote:
Coming late into this discussion...
In our deployment which concern a very large number of devices (many
millions), we will use DHCPv6 only.
Thanks for your answer, it certainly adds much to the poll results. (!!)
Would you mind a few follow-up questions, on the DHCPv6 s
: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:01 PM
To: DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO
Cc: IPV6 Mailing List
Subject: Re: Results: Straw poll: autoconf vs manual conf
On 28-sep-2007, at 20:00, DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO wrote:
> If a network administrator decides to set
On 28-sep-2007, at 20:00, DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO wrote:
If a network administrator decides to set the M bit meaning that it
intends to always manage the address configuration, can he expect
all hosts to support the DHCP functionality?
In other words, is DHCP a MUST implement for IPv6 host
DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO wrote:
Hi,
I apologize for abusing of this thread but I'm looking for a simple
answer (if such thing is possible) If a network administrator decides
to set the M bit meaning that it intends to always manage the address
configuration, can he expect all hosts to support t
Alain,
In your deployment, you probably control the host as well and hence can
choose DHCPv6 as the only mechanism for address assignment. This works fine
in such an environment. But not in an environment where many different types
of hosts with different capabilities could attach to the network.
james woodyatt writes:
> On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:00, DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO wrote:
> >
> > In other words, is DHCP a MUST implement for IPv6 hosts?
>
> Only if they expect to obtain service from the router sending
> advertisements with M=1. Nodes that don't implement DHCP6 are free
> to obtai
Whatever the IETF decides, implementers are free to implement what they want
and network managers are free to deploy what they want the way they want.
Ie, devices that may or may not implement DHCPv6.
Some devices that have DHCPv6 implemented could be configured to ignore
completely the M bit and
On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:49, James Carlson wrote:
And it'd probably take the threat of violence to prevent them from
using manually-configured addresses (even global scope ones) if they
so choose.
Or EAPOL.
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications enginee
On 9/28/07 12:42 PM, "james woodyatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2007, at 07:01, Alain Durand wrote:
>> >
>> > 0% stateless autoconf.
>
> Do you mean there will be router advertisements with M=1 and one or
> more prefix information options with A=0?
>
>
>
>
> * It will depend.
On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:00, DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO wrote:
In other words, is DHCP a MUST implement for IPv6 hosts?
Only if they expect to obtain service from the router sending
advertisements with M=1. Nodes that don't implement DHCP6 are free
to obtain service from other routers on the s
?
In other words, is DHCP a MUST implement for IPv6 hosts?
Regards
federico
-Message d'origine-
De : james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : vendredi 28 septembre 2007 18:43
À : IPV6 Mailing List
Objet : Re: Results: Straw poll: autoconf vs manual conf
On Sep 28, 2007, at 07
On Sep 28, 2007, at 07:01, Alain Durand wrote:
0% stateless autoconf.
Do you mean there will be router advertisements with M=1 and one or
more prefix information options with A=0?
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
--
Coming late into this discussion...
In our deployment which concern a very large number of devices (many
millions), we will use DHCPv6 only.
In our internal infrastructure, we are planning to use mostly DHCPv6 on
servers and manual config for anything where DHCPv6 may not make sense, eg
routers.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 02:37:33PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >>
> >>I and I suspect others took it as a serious question. Since you
> >>didn't answer, I ignored your poll.
> >>
> >I didn't answer *yet* as of then, but have answered it now.
> >
> >Does this mean you'll answer the poll now?
> >
>
I and I suspect others took it as a serious question. Since you
didn't answer, I ignored your poll.
I didn't answer *yet* as of then, but have answered it now.
Does this mean you'll answer the poll now?
Sure, 100% auto-config.
Bob
-
Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 19, 2007, at 1:40 PM, ext Brian Dickson wrote:
Bob Hinden wrote:
Yes, right after you sent the poll. See:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg08529.html
I thought it was odd you didn't respond.
Okay, I stand corrected. I got *one* request for
On Sep 19, 2007, at 1:40 PM, ext Brian Dickson wrote:
Bob Hinden wrote:
Yes, right after you sent the poll. See:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg08529.html
I thought it was odd you didn't respond.
Okay, I stand corrected. I got *one* request for a clarification,
Bob Hinden wrote:
Yes, right after you sent the poll. See:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg08529.html
I thought it was odd you didn't respond.
Okay, I stand corrected. I got *one* request for a clarification, and it
was from Illjitsch.
Because of who asked the questi
Brian,
I think the reason for the small number of responses was that you
never clarified if you were talking about hosts, routers, or both.
Hmmm
I never received any requests for clarification, so I don't agree
that it was confusing.
Do you know of anyone personally that chose not to an
Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:58 PM, ext Brian Dickson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I realize this list might not represent the bulk of the deployed IPv6
networks... nonetheless, I'm curious.)
This is an informal survey of what is deployed in terms of IPv6
networks.
Do you u
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:58 PM, ext Brian Dickson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I realize this list might not represent the bulk of the deployed
IPv6
networks... nonetheless, I'm curious.)
This is an informal survey of what is deployed in terms of IPv6
networks.
Do you use autoconf only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (I realize this list might not represent the bulk of the deployed IPv6
> networks... nonetheless, I'm curious.)
>
> This is an informal survey of what is deployed in terms of IPv6 networks.
> Do you use autoconf only, static assignments only, or a mix?
>
>
Many thanks
37 matches
Mail list logo
