> "PD (Automatic Prefix Delegation)" doesn't specify any means to set the > prefix pool the routers rely on for delegation, apart from a manual setting.
Could you kindly explain what you mean by this sentence in another way? I did't get the point... > The DHCPv6 option could be used in this aim, and would be therefore > complementary to PD... > Moreover PD also deals with routing protocol negocation, and does then more > than just prefix delegation... This point is interesting in so far as the > reachability of the subnet(s) corresponding to the delegated prefix must be > achieved in a way or another... I believe PD and DHCP are not competing, but can live together, like RA and DHCP can do so at a subnet. My understanding is that PD is "third-party-serverless autoconfig" or "third-party-server independent autoconfig" and DHCP is "third-party-server dependent", because PD is for routers which actually delegate and route the delegated prefix, and DHCP is not necessarily so. > > Yoann > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Yamasaki Toshi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Envoye : jeudi 14 fevrier 2002 04:52 > A : Lilian Fernandes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: PPP and Global Addresses > > > > "PD (Automatic Prefix Delegation)" is one of the choices. > > draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01.txt > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01. > txt > > To solve all the configuration issues with DHCPv6 might be another good > choice, but I guess PD be a minimum requirement for those who want an > automatic prefix delegation mechanism for (for example) IPv6 access > services, and DHCPv6 would be an option for those who want more. > > ---Toshi Yamasaki / NTT Communications > > > Hi, > > > > I have a question about RFC2472 - "IP Version 6 over PPP". The RFC talks > > about the negotiation of the Interface-Identifier and specifies the > > Interface-Identifier Configuration Option. In this case the upper 64 bits > > are just fe80:: > > > > It does not mention if there is any standard way to configure a > > global/site-local prefix on a point-to-point link i.e. are there > > configuration options to let one side tell the other about a global > > prefix? > > > > Or is it just left upto the users at both ends to decide on a prefix > > somehow and then configure it on each end? > > > > I'm sorry if there is an RFC about this that I missed... > > > > Thanks, > > Lilian > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > > Lilian Fernandes > > AIX TCP/IP Development - IBM Austin > > Tel: 512-838-7966 Fax: 512-838-3509 > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
