>>> So basically, regarding how to actually implement PD in a network (from an >>> IETF point of view), everybody just gave up, declared the problem >>> unsolvable, and went back to sleep? >> >> It shouldn't be the IETF's job to tell people how to run their networks. >> The IETF provides the building blocks. > > Seems to me that IETF in this case failed to provide a suggestion for a > working solution. > > So neither equipment vendors nor network operators now have any kind of > recommendation on how to do things, and we now see that several vendors have > failed to implement DHCPv6-PD with routing in their equipment, and network > operators are now supposed to modify their DHCPv6 backend servers to > provision static routes in their routers? Is there even an IETF > recommendation document that says this is the way things should be done? And > that indentifies pitfalls in doing so?
an interesting twist of blaming the IETF. usually it's the IETF blaming the "market" that it doesn't adopt any of its more or less brilliant standards. ;-) if you want anything to happen here, write a draft. not that we have an RFC describing DHCPv4 snooping either, so I'd hope you come up with something clever! ;-) Best regards, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
