[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP

> > I would add to the list:
> >
> > 5. RAs, ll + DHCP announced prefixes + DHCP announced DNS server(s) +
> other
> >  node configuration options.
> >
> 
> I'm guessing that the RA in this scenario is only for default router
> announcement?

Yes as of today specification. Also, as said before on this list, the RA
could include the flag bit that tells the host to use DHCPv6.

There is also another possible scenario, without RAs and just DHCPv6.

IMHO if there are people that are not deploying IPv6 because of the lack of
features of DHCPv6 or that they don't want to deploy RAs on their network,
we must try to know why (maybe an IPv4 minded point of view or the control
and flexibility DHCP offers, don't know) but for sure if the required
functionalities are added as required, IPv6 deployment will win. Lets's
think on this as a TRANSITION MECHANISM ;-)

Regards,
Alvaro

 
> Regards,
> Mark.
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alvaro
> >
> > > -----Mensaje original-----
> > > De: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] En
> nombre
> > > de Mark Smith
> > > Enviado el: jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2007 23:57
> > > Para: Brian E Carpenter
> > > CC: Gert Doering; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > > Asunto: Re: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:02:09 +1200
> > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2007-09-13 18:56, Gert Doering wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:46:31PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> 	i agree that vendors would implement whatever they would
need
> to,
> > > but
> > > > >> 	iirc the group is here to give guidance for operations.
> > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Routers are there, so RAs are there anyway.  DHCP is an extra.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can see, in a minimal ("dentist's office") scenario,
> > > > the one thing a host must have in addition to addressing and
> > > > routing info is DNS servers. Since auto-configuration was
> > > > explicitly designed to support the minimal scenario, it seems
> > > > entirely rational to add DNS server info to RA. On the other hand,
> > > > DHCP can support dozens of additional features, and we surely
> > > > shouldn't import that level of complexity into RA.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That sounds reasonable to me.
> > >
> > > Would the following be a fair summary of the scenarios being talked
> > > around?
> > >
> > > 1. No RAs, link local only addressing, Zeroconf techniques/Multicast
> DNS
> > >
> > > 2. RAs, ll + RA announced prefixes, RA announced DNS server(s)
> > >
> > > 3. RAs, ll + RA announced prefixes, RA announced DNS server(s), DHCP
> > > for any other node configuration options
> > >
> > > 4. RAs, ll + RA announced prefixes, DHCP announced DNS server(s) +
> other
> > > node
> > > configuration options.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mark.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> >
> > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> > http://www.ipv6day.org
> >
> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
> >



**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.