This problem definitely needs to be addressed. However, its not unique to this draft.
The similar problem exists with DNS, similar prefixes, and a lot of other parameters that you can get with both DHCP and RA. This is debatable but can be argued as a configuration issue as SLAAC and DHCPv6 shouldn't really be providing conflicting information. One could always provide a CLI knob to assign priorities against these. Cheers, Manav > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Wuyts Carl > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:49 PM > To: Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam; Samita Chakrabarti > Cc: 6man Mailing List > Subject: RE: IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for NTP Server > Configuration > > I agree that one could benefit in some cases from NTP through > RA's, however I don't see any info on "cooperation" between > DHCPv6 and RA in your draft, i.e. what is you get your NTP > through both channels (both RA and DHCPv6) ? What if content > is different on these 2 channels ? What if (if received on > both channels) the content of one of them is not available > anymore at some point in time ? ..., Apart from that, we now > have DNS support in RA, you're adding NTP, what's next ... ? > If more info gets sent through RA, more clashes are possible > in case the info is also present though DHCPv6, hence the > more complex it'll get letting them work together. > > regs > > Carl Wuyts > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam > Sent: donderdag 22 december 2011 2:15 > To: Samita Chakrabarti > Cc: 6man Mailing List > Subject: Re: IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for NTP Server > Configuration > > Yes, i agree with Manav and Samita. There are networks where > SLAAC is essential and NTP being a core component, must get extended. > > Kam > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Samita Chakrabarti > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Agree with Manav on the usecases. > > > > Adhoc type of networks, m2m IoT networks and some home > networks benefit from SLAAC where DHCP Service may not make > sense or may be an overhead to maintain. > > > > -Samita > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > > Of Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:52 PM > > To: Doug Barton > > Cc: 6man Mailing List > > Subject: RE: IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for NTP Server > > Configuration > > > > Hi Doug, > > > >> > >> Sort of surprised that no one else has responded so far, but I'll > >> bite. > >> Quite simply, "no." Slightly less simply, "use DHCP since > that's what > >> it's for." > >> > > > > I wish it were this simple. > > > > Different operators have different requirements and > preferences based on their environments. I have seen > deployments where SLAAC is much more useful than DHCPv6. I've > seen deployments where DHCPv6 is needed. So both have a place > and we should let the operators decide what they want to use. > Environments with 4 to 20 devices in them (small businesses) > may not want the complexity of setting up a central server. > Those environments are probably more suited for SLAAC. > > > > We have heard customers asking SLAAC to be extended to > support NTP, "boot-file", "next-server" and a few other > things that are currently only available with DHCP. > > > > Currently, operators need to use both SLAAC and DHCP to run > their networks. This is far from ideal. Far better for > organizations to look at 2 complete solutions and pick the > solution that works best for them in their environment. > > > > Today, we can get NTP server information only with DHCP. > DHCP only works after RAs have been processed. In some > environments (mobile IPv6) delays in acquiring NTP and other > servers information is critical and waiting for DHCP to come > up is NOT an ideal solution. > > > > Cheers, Manav > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
