Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

["Howard, Lee" <william.howard at twcable.com>]

> 
P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Iljitsch
> van Beijnum
> > I am considerably more worried about a possible inconsistency
between
> > the router and the DHCP server, than pointing the client towards a
> > black hole. It is not a problem for us today, and I see no reason
why
> > it should be a bigger problem with IPv6.
> 
> There are problems with DHCP in IPv4 all the time, especially for non-

That's not a problem I'm experiencing.  YMMV.

> expert users. Having routers announce their own presence was one of
> the things that make IPv6 more reliable than IPv4. Throwing away that
> feature is completely unacceptable to me, so expect unrelenting
> opposition if that is what you intend to standardize here.

You are welcome to use RAs; that standard exists.  I want to be able to
provide information via DHCP.

> Yes, this means that you still need to have RAs in your network. In an
> ideal world you would be able to get rid of those if you don't want
> them. But this isn't an ideal world, and RAs don't get in the way in
> any way that I can see, so having to live with this is more than worth
> having the additional robustness that hosts can still talk to the rest
> of the network if the DHCP server dies or someone fatfingers its
config.

The draft says "option," right?  Section 5.1: the client has to request
the 
Default Router options.  One predictable solution is to have the client
request a default router from DHCP if not learned through RA.  I
haven't worked through the timing there; possible race condition or
delay in configuration.

I see a data normalization issue with providing interdependent 
information from two authoritative sources.
I generally find broadcast capabilities announcements unsatisfactory, 
both because they are chatty, and because they facilitate
reconnaissance.
A resource request ("Configure me") is less chatty, and though more
subject to a race response attack, that's essentially an authentication
issue, and not made harder or easier by adding this option.

Lee

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.