[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Overloading RA [Re: RFC 5006 status]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I fully agree with Brian here.
I would choose DHCPv6 inside my ISP/data center
network to do any dynamic node configurations where necessary.
Traceability is a MUST.
But I would like to have SLAAC in other areas specifically
services that connect nodes
that don't have robust amount of resources.
So keeping SLAAC simple, but with the
options that are absolutely necessary to
get connected(default router and dns)
without relying on other protocols or manual
configuration, would be the best thing.
Regards,
Seiichi
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-03-19 11:25, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> You still miss my point. I don't think sending config info in RAs is
>> necessarily a bad idea. The IETF has worked from an architectural
>> guideline of providing one way to carry config. Some network operators
>> would rather use one protocol to carry config, be that ND or DHCP. It's
>> just a different philosophy.
>>
>> I do think the idea of carrying config info in RAs is being sold with
>> FUD. I also think the ways in which adding more config info to RAs
>> ought to be thought through fairly carefully, based on some of the
>> IETF's relevant experience with DHCP.
>
> What I notice is that DHCP has become very heavily loaded with options.
> Although one can deploy DHCP without using all those options, it has
> become a complex thing. SLAAC at least has the advantage that it's
> stayed simple; in fact the only overloading so far is RFC 5006. I think
> we'd need a very convincing argument to depart from that simplicity,
> as opposed to simply saying: if you need to convey arbitrary parameters
> to hosts, use DHCPv6, which is intended for that purpose.
>
> A DNS server address is not an arbitrary parameter; along with a default
> router, it's the second address you *must* know in every host. So adding
> it to SLAAC seems consistent. Adding arbitrary parameters to SLAAC would
> be a whole other approach, and I'm not sure I understand the motivation.
>
> Brian
>> - Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM 3/18/10, Gert Doering wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:40:15PM -0700, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>>> I don't happen to share your opinion that "[t]he IETF has solidly
>>>> messed up this part of IPv6 by delaying things for 10 years or so,"
>>> No need to share any opinion here. Just try to run an IPv6-only network
>>> with Windows, Linux and MacOS clients, and consider whether the IETF
>>> might have given vendors better guidance. Or finished one or the other
>>> RFC 5 years earlier.
>>>
>>> As an operational person, this endless bickering between the RA camp and
>>> the "what do you need RA for that, when DHCP can do this all along" has
>>> FAIL stamped all over it.
>>>
>>> Gert Doering
>>> -- NetMaster
>>> --
>>> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584
>>>
>>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
>>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
>>> Grundner-Culemann
>>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>>> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>>
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkui1sEACgkQcrhTYfxyMkLcFgCfYrw8qJBRg1RusLOHtAt6OOfj
uH4An0deFXQJJ0X1a/2UJ7ux0a9vkbAn
=W/oE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----