I did not attend the IPng meeting in May 2001 in Redmond and in the minutes I do not see the reasons why DHCPv6 protocol is not appropriate for router prefix delegation.
For several contexts, I think that we need some protocols or some extensions to make the prefix router delegation possible, and as it has been proposed by Ole, the new DHCP options can fit the needs.
So, what are the reasons why DHCPv6 is not appropriate for such use ?
Thanks
David Binet
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoye : jeudi 14 fevrier 2002 20:34
A : Francis Dupont
Cc : Lilian Fernandes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: PPP and Global Addresses
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/minutes/ipng-meeting-may2001.txt
> > (search for Dialup Architecture, note this is my last attempt to find
> > an usefulness to DHCPv6 :-).
>
> we're just about to suggest a couple of new DHCPv6 options for this
> purpose.
>
> => you may but don't forget the vote was 0 (zero) in favour of DHCPv6
> and at least Steve Deering is publicly strongly opposed to use DHCPv6
> for router configuration.
I'll let Steve speak for himself.
it turns out that router to router prefix delegation has a number of
conceptual similarities with statefull address assignment. instead of
making a new protocol evolve into DHCP under a different name, I
suggest we reconsider the use of DHCP.
/ot
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
