ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

2016-02-23 07:35:11
On 02/23/2016 09:47 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Fernando Gont 
<fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
<mailto:fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com>> wrote:

    That's actually the contrary of what the specs say today: if M=1 you do
    DHCPv6, not SLAAC.


I don't see any statement in 4861 that says that. Per 4861, M=1 means
"DHCPv6 is available", not "nodes should do DHCPv6". Relevant text:

      M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
                     set, it indicates that addresses are available via
                     Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].

This is the first one I found:

   Moreover, information
   may also be obtained through other dynamic means like DHCPv6.  Hosts
   accept the union of all received information; the receipt of a Router
   Advertisement MUST NOT invalidate all information received in a
   previous advertisement or from another source.

If you want, take this as a "may". But your text says SHOULD NOT, and
may != SHOULD NOT.

Besides, what if say, there's different address information available
via RA vs DHCPv6? --the text I cited above suggests that you accept the
union, but you suggest that you accept only the info provided by the RAs.

Again, I don't disagree (per se) with the proposal to do SLAAC rather
than DHCPv6 . But, I just think the behavior being suggested differs
from what we currently have -- hence the suggested "Update".

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>