But all IPv6 nodes are required to support SLAAC and all routers are required to generate RAs. What is the meaning of "no SLAAC"?
Regards Brian On 12/12/2012 10:53, Xiayangsong wrote: > Hi Ole > > I am a little bit confused what we are talking about. > Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC. > > Could you elaborate your viewpoints? > > Thanks > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ole > Tr?an > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:10 PM > To: Sheng Jiang > Cc: <[email protected]> WG; IPv6 List > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6" > > Sheng, > >>>>> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a >>>>> DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed. >>>>> ND is required for router discovery, neighbour discovery etc anyway. and a >>>>> router on the link must be configured >>>>> with the onlink prefix regardless. >>>>> >>>>> while we can clearly make this work, I don't think it is justified to >>>>> create a >>>>> duplicate mechanism for prefix discovery. >>>>> section 3.2 RFC1958. >>>> Hi, Ole, >>>> >>>> Assuming all networks are using SLAAC is not right. >>>> >>>> In WiMAX NWG IPv6 spec, Revision 6, see the attachment. >>>> >>>> Stateful (DHCPv6) address configuration is supported. >>>> Check Sections 5.11.11.4 and 5.11.12.2. >>>> >>>> Also, BBF document TR-177 supports stateful address configuration using >>> DHCPv6, check Section 4.2. >>>> I also know a few ISP desire to use DHCPv6 in their networks. >>> I make no assumption that all networks are using SLAAC for address >>> assignment. >>> >>> there is no conflict between using ND for prefix assignment and DHCPv6 for >>> address assignment. >> So, how can you get host generated addresses, like EUI64 address, CGA, or >> Privacy address? Particular for CGA, host has to get prefix first, then use >> prefix as part of input to generate host identifier. >> >> Or you are saying in DHCPv6-managed network, you still use ND to assign >> prefix. I don't think that deployment is good idea. > > that's how the IPv6 protocols are designed. from the beginning. that's how > all DHCPv6 managed networks run today. > I don't see the problem? > > cheers, > Ole > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
