On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) < [email protected]> wrote:
> This draft proposes new DHCPv6 options to be added by the DHCPv6 relay > agent when it generates a Relay-Forwarded message to influence the DHCPv6 > server's response that modify the host's address policy table > [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-opt] based on observed network characteristics. > These options can also be used to conditionally disable IPv6 temporary > addresses in a managed network for selective hosts without authentication > supplicant. > > Comments and suggestions are welcome. > A few general points: 1. The draft deals with two DHCPv6 options, with different use cases. Why are you combine the options? I believe things would be much clearer if each option had its own draft with its own use case. 2. Why is this draft in MIF? The address selection option has nothing to do with multiple interfaces, and is already being discussed in 6man. The relay-supplied prefix option also has nothing to do with multiple interfaces. 3. The introduction does not provide a problem statement that matches the solutions. The introduction says that "DHCPv6 allows relatively static information to be configured in hosts, which is somewhat limiting", but then states that the problem can be fixed by introducing DHCPv6 options. I don't see how this is possible. DHCPv6 options cannot make things more dynamic, since in DHCPv6, options are only handed out at request/response time, and DHCPv6 options cannot change how often requests are made. Since the options being proposed as solutions do not solve the problem, the draft needs another problem statement. 4. The draft confuses RFC4941 privacy addresses with IA_TA options. Ignoring IA_TA options will not disable RFC4941 privacy addresses, because they are only used by SLAAC. The references to RFC 4941 should be removed. As regards the address selection option specifically: 1. The option itself is still work in progress in 6man. So the modifications should happen in 6man, not here. Otherwise we will have two working groups working on the same option which is likely to have bad results. 3. I don't understand the use case (Section 3.1). If the DHCPv6 relay is in the mobile access gateway, then it's in the mobile operator's network. If it's in the mobile operator's network, then how can it "influence the DHCPv6 Server in the home network"? In general, the DHCPv6 server in the home network has no way of talking to the mobile operator's network.
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
