Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] draft-ietf-6man-default-iids Section 4 & 6.9 (DHCPv6)

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:30:35 +0000

Alissa, et al:

Based on a conversation between some of the draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis coauthors and in the DHC WG session Wednesday (7/20) morning, we are not in favor of the replacement text as it currently stands. We will work something up and send it to you as soon as we can.

We are likely to simplify the replacement text to something like the following (but this is only my proposal and has not been reviewed by others):

    By default, DHCPv6 server implementations SHOULD NOT generate
    predictable IPv6 addresses ([RFC7721]). DHCPv6 servers SHOULD
    NOT assign addresses that use a reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier
    ([RFC5453], [RFC7136], and [IANARESERVEDIID]).

We are tracking this issue at https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/166.

- Bernie

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 10:45:13 +0200

Bernie, et al,

The first line of the abstract says:
   "This document changes the recommended default IID generation scheme
   for cases where SLAAC is used to generate a stable IPv6 address."

I'm not convinced that we need to have the DHCP paragraph there at all.
Would that work for you?

Best regards,
Ole

> On 21 Jul 2016, at 10:30, Bernie Volz (volz) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa, et al:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:58:40 +0000

Ole:

(I fixed 6man mailing list address.)

That is probably the best solution and I would support that.

We can still discuss changing some of the text in 3315bis, but that can
then be done without 6man involvement. (We do still have the older text in
what is now Section 12.1 of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05, so should really
clean that up.)

- Bernie

On 7/21/16, 4:45 AM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Based on a conversation between some of the draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis
>>coauthors and in the DHC WG session Wednesday (7/20) morning, we are not
>>in favor of the replacement text as it currently stands. We will work
>>something up and send it to you as soon as we can.
>> 
>> We are likely to simplify the replacement text to something like the
>>following (but this is only my proposal and has not been reviewed by
>>others):
>> 
>> We are tracking this issue at
>>https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/166.
>> 
>> - Bernie