Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Agenda items for dhc WG meeting at IETF67

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 05:47:08 -0400

Ruri Hiromi presented, during the last IETF, the arguments and  
discussions related to

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arifumi-ipv6-policy- 
dist-01.txt
   "Practical Usages of Address Selection Policy Distribution", Arifumi
   Matsumoto, 20-Jun-06, <draft-arifumi-ipv6-policy-dist-01.txt>

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arifumi-v6ops-addr- 
select-ps-00.txt
   "Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix  
Environment:
   Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules", Arifumi Matsumoto,  
13-Jun-06,
   <draft-arifumi-v6ops-addr-select-ps-00.txt>

The viewpoint expressed by the working group was that one could  
imagine that a company might have a certain non-default address  
selection policy and that the DHCP option suggested is of value, but  
that the work needed to be done in DHCP WG. What we didn't explicitly  
determine (which the DHCP chairs are asking) is "do people believe  
that companies are likely to build address selection policies that  
materially differ from that of RFC 3484?"

So - what is the opinion of the working group? "Yes, such policies  
can be expected to be sufficiently common that the definition of the  
DHCP option is warranted"? Or "No, such policies are not likely to be  
common"?

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:53:33 +0100

> DHCP option is warranted"? Or "No, such policies are not likely to be  

One thing we noticed recently was that the newer Fedora install implements
the address selection policy but it now defaults to prefer IPv4 over IPv6.
My understanding of section 2.1 is that IPv6 should, with a default policy,
be preferred over IPv4.   It's not clear whether this change in behaviour
was by design or accident.

Thus such an option would be handy either for an admin trying to make sure
that implementations do what the RFC says, or that perhaps want to prefer
IPv4 in their environment, even though both protocols are available.

This bugzilla reference is related and interesting:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190495

-- 
Tim