DHCPv6 for IPv6 routing information, was Re: Mysterious missingDHCPv6 feature

[Dan Wing]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+dwing=cisco.com at lists.cluenet.de 
> [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+dwing=cisco.com at lists.cluenet.de] On 
> Behalf Of Shane Kerr
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:16 AM
> To: sthaug at nethelp.no
> Cc: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: DHCPv6 for IPv6 routing information, was Re: 
> Mysterious missingDHCPv6 feature
> 
> Steinar,
> 
> On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 08:44 +0200, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
> > > > 	DHCP to hand out DNS servers, NTP servers on 
> request, and do
> > > > 	dynamic update for the forward and reverse DNS maps.
> > > 
> > > And the new feature you were looking for was to hand out 
> a default-gw, 
> > > right? That's the "this" feature you were referring to 
> and IETF didn't 
> > > want to do?
> > 
> > I'm glad to see such patches (I'm tempted to say "about time").
> > 
> > I would of course be even happier to see a *standardized* 
> solution to
> > let DHCPv6 hand out a default gateway. The lack of such a 
> feature (and
> > the strong religious opposition to it in certain circles), 
> despite clear
> > statements from several big operators that they need it, is 
> one of the
> > significant factors hampering IPv6 deployment.
> 
> I used to be a DHCPv6 guy, although not so much any more. (I 
> was part of
> the three-man team that coded ISC's first DHCPv6 release a few years
> back.)
> 
> As I understand it, there was a persistent and insistent 
> group of people
> within the IETF that really, really, REALLY wanted DHCP to 
> not exist on
> IPv6 at all. I wasn't involved at all during those times, but I am led
> to believe this was largely a "zeroconf" push.
> 
> Remember the idea that IPv6 was going to autoconfigure everything, and
> no management would be necessary?
> 
>                     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> Honestly. Some people. I'm reminded of people who told me in 1990 that
> programing would go away because it would be so easy to make 
> software do
> what you wanted it to.
> 
> Anyway, whatever the reason, there is a group of DHCP-haters. 
> Especially
> in the IPv6 universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, the philosophy has been that for each problem we
> should have ONE protocol to solve it. This makes a certain amount of
> sense. With routing information, this is supposed to be router
> advertisements (RA). This is the argument against putting routing
> information in DHCPv6 (as I understand it).
> 
> Strangely, rather than saying "look we have DNS information 
> in DHCPv6 so
> we don't need it in RA", the tactic was taken to create a RA that
> includes DNS servers. Which sort of seems like TWO protocols 
> to solve a
> particular problem. Oh well, at least it's only EXPERIMENTAL 
> (RFC 5006).

Which is adding DNS search list (so it provides the same
information as the associated DHCPv6 RFC) and going standards 
track,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis-00


> There does seem to be a draft for exactly this feature:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-03

Which is doing almost the same thing as RFC4191, which uses
RAs.

> So there's hope for the future. The "intended status" is INFORMATIONAL
> though, and it hasn't been accepted as a working group item 
> yet, so who knows... :)

I understand the IETF's MIF working group has interest in 
draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option.

-d