[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC 5006 status



No - IMO it would be a bad idea to define a generic RA container option for DHCP options. (See previous e-mail.)

- Ralph

On Mar 18, 2010, at 6:15 AM 3/18/10, Ole Troan wrote:

Here is my input to this.

First of, we have in IPv6 two competing auto-config mechanisms: RA & DHCP. For a subset of parameters, they more or less overlap. For others, they do not. DNS is in the later category, only in the standard track for DHCP. An example of what can only be discovered with RA is default router or prefix info. This has been a very poisonous discussion for many years, with the result that the IPv6 autoconf story is more complicated that the IPv4 one.

At this point, I would favor opening the larger discussion of “How can we fix this mess” rather than pushing a particular technique from experimental to standard track. It might be that the only acceptable answer is we need to defined BOTH mechanisms for every value to discover.

we already have proposals for doing other options in ND, which already exist in DHCP. should we reconsider the idea of a generic DHCPv6 option container option for ND?

cheers,
Ole