Hi All,
Thanks for the discussion. As one of the author of the draft, I would like to share our view on DHCPv6 used case in three aspects. *Network management and configuration. 1. It is efficient for the network to configure this in a central DHCPv6 server to do unified routing policy configuration. The gateways (e.g., GGSN in cellular network) only need to perform DHCPv6 relay. 2. The Option Code in the DHCPv6 Request message can be used as an indication that the host is MIF capable so that the network need not to do such configuration to host without MIF feature **Cellular network 1. In cellular network, DHCPv6 is used for IPv6 parameter configuration and RA is used for SLAAC of handset. This is start from 3GPP release 8 (or earlier). 2. The network gateway in cellular network (e.g., GGSN) can naturally support DHCPv6 extension since the gateway acts as a DHCPv6 relay. However, it is very hard to update those gateways to use RA announcing the route information. 3. The handsets with MIF feature need to visit subscribed/operator provided service. Some traffic is routed to the operator’s network through 3G interface instead of to Internet through WiFi. DHCPv6 will be used to configure these specific routes. You can refer to the following report on more description of MIF use case in cellular network. ***Broadband network 1. WiFi network. Some WiFi hotspots provide local services. The route configuration on RG is needed to direct some traffic to local network while other traffic to the Internet. 2. VPN network. When a user connect to enterprise VPN network, the routing of VPN traffic need to be configured. Due to the large number of such VPN network, we cannot assume all the VPN network only use RA. DHCPv6 provides another choice which may be preferred by the VPN network. We summarize the requirements and the use cases as the following: 1) In view of the DHCPv6 requirements in several fields, vendor-specific options lead to several segmented definitions. An IETF defined general option is a better choice. 2) Per user/host configuration makes DHCPv6 be used for the on-demand configuration. 3) The centralized relay architecture is a widely used way at present for IPv4 and it will also be used for IPv6. That is IETF’s responsibility to support such requirement. Regards, Tao Sun On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > On Nov 22, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > > The similar userland-vs-kernel (read DHCP vs RA) discussion has it that > it is easier to do one not both. > > > Of course it is easier to do one, not both. But it's no problem to do > both. > > (also relating to your earlier mentioning compiling being lengthy for ARM > kernel - yes it is quicker to compile userland DHCP than kernel RA). > > > This is easily solved by cross-compiling. > > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > >
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
