[LAC-TF] Sobre el mal diseño de SLAAC y DHCPv6 (Fwd: Re: [v6ops] New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt))
fgont at si6networks.com
Tue Feb 28 19:54:55 BRT 2017
Resumen del problema a manos de Brian Carpenter (de esos poquitos que
vale la pena leer).
P.S.: Y pensar que te venideron que unos de los aspectos maravillosos de
IPv6 es que es "plug&play".... que la inocencia te valga! ;-)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version
Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:30:27 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com>, james woodyatt
<jhw at google.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops at ietf.org>
On 01/03/2017 10:12, Fernando Gont wrote:
> If your network has such a requirement, use RDNSS rather than SLAAC.
> We're not mandating what you must *use*. Actually, we want to allow you
> to make that choice. Right now, you can't. Because Google's Android
> refuses to implement stateless DHCPv6, and MS Windows and a number of
> router vendors refuse to implement RDNSS.
This is the point. We are supposed to care about interoperbility, and
this is a breakage in interoperability specification, which has led to
breakage in real-world interoperability. Our bad.
There's another closely related breakage, which is the absence of
default router signalling in DHCPv6. That means that even if a site
must use DHCPv6 for configuring stuff that RAs cannot configure, they
must also use RAs for configuring stuff that DHCPv6 cannot configure.
Something like bad systems design.
More information about the LACTF