On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ralph Droms wrote: > Let's be clear: Ole did not say anything about whether your proposal does or > does not meet the requirements in > draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-04.txt.
Right; I noticed this. > Ole stated that > RFC3633 meets those requirements, which it does without requiring that a PD > delegating router "re-implement everything that DHCP could provide". My point was that DHCP also provides N++ other features which are completely unnecessary. The proposal was specificatlly *not* to re-implement everything DHCP is providing. > For clarity, no one has stated (or even suggested) that "DHCPv6 must be > implemented by every box". Obviously -- but looking at the arguments made at different fora, this is more or less the road we're treading. Basically all CPE-grade routers (or nodes which could be used as such, including also most host sytems) need to be able to the receiving end of PD. Include the DNS resolver etc. discovery requirements on the mix and you're pretty close to "implement in every box". > If a vendor wants to make PD available in a product, the vendor > implements DHCPv6 PD. You're equating "vendor wants to provide PD" with "vendor wants to provide PD with DHCPv6". -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
