Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #68 (XML 3315): Bakeoff: Clients - Prefix Length of Assigned Addresses

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:40:59 -0000

#68: Bakeoff: Clients - Prefix Length of Assigned Addresses

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Latest proposal from Lorenzo:

 Addresses received via DHCPv6 do not have any associated reachability
 information. In order avoid the problems described in [RFC4943], hosts
 MUST NOT assume that any IPv6 destinations are reachable on-link as a
 result of receiving an IA_NA or IA_TA. In order to communicate to any
 destination that is not a link-local address, the host must also have
 obtained reachability information by other means such as a Router
 Advertisement or manual configuration.

-- 
----------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:
     Type:  task            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P4 minor        |   Milestone:  C awaiting consensus
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                  |    Due Date:
----------------------------+-----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/68#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:29:01 -0000

Hemant Singh also suggested "Folks should read RFC5942.  See section 4,
 bullet 1.":

    A correctly implemented IPv6 host MUST adhere to the following rules:

    1.  The assignment of an IPv6 address -- whether through IPv6
        stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862], DHCPv6 [RFC3315],
        or manual configuration -- MUST NOT implicitly cause a prefix
        derived from that address to be treated as on-link and added to
        the Prefix List.  A host considers a prefix to be on-link only
        through explicit means, such as those specified in the on-link
        definition in the Terminology section of [RFC4861] (as modified
        by this document) or via manual configuration.  Note that the
        requirement for manually configured addresses is not explicitly
        mentioned in [RFC4861].

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/68#comment:3>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 15:16:05 -0000

Ted suggested:

 Addresses received via DHCPv6 do not have any associated reachability
 information. In order avoid the problems described in [RFC4943], hosts
 MUST NOT assume that any IPv6 addresses are reachable on-link as a result
 of receiving an IA_NA or IA_TA. IPv6 addresses obtained from IA_NA or
 IA_TA MUST NOT be used to form an implicit prefix with a length other than
 128.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/68#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>