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

Re: RFC 5006 status

What's the difference between running Stateless DHCPv6 vs carrying
DHCP options in ND messages?

If nodes can implement DHCP options in ND messages, I could not
understand why cannot they implement Stateless DHCPv6 itself.

In case ND option for DHCPv6 options is better than running stateless
DHCPv6, then we need to look at whether there exists any other options
other the DNS server address for which IETF is looking at defining RA
options.

Thanks,
Syam

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Le 17 mars 2010 à 16:18, Fred Baker a écrit :
>
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5006.txt
>>
>> (1) Please take a look at the document in the next few days; if you have comments on it (eg, you think it should be changed in some way), please comment to v6ops.
>
> While supporting in general the idea, there is one improvement I suggest to make:
> Rather than a specific RA option for Recursive DNS Servers, standardize the generic RA option to embed some stateless DHCP options, as proposed in draft-krishnan-intarea-ra-dhcp-00.
>
> This is in my understanding more powerful without being more complex.
> By giving to routers a general possibility to broadcast stateless DHCP parameters (in addition to their still being obtainable in DHCPv6), not only the purpose of RFC50026 is achieved but, in one shot, the same progress is made for all common parameters that may concern all or most hosts.
>
> Hosts that support the RA DHCP option only have to: (1) process embedded DHCP options that they understand; (2) skip others; (3) request in DHCPv6 only options that aren't already received in RAs, if any.
>
> Note that Suresh Krishnan has 15min slot scheduled at the 6man meeting of Wednesday for:
> "Stateless DHCPv6 and Router Advertisements for propagating configuration information".
>
> I add Suresh to the list, and Dan Wing who is known to support this approach.
>
> RD
>
>