Hi Greg, > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:24 AM > To: timothy enos > Cc: 'Stig Venaas'; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Distribution of RFC 3484 address selection policies > > Hi Tim, > > timothy enos wrote: > [cut] > >>In that case, I think we > >>should try to look for possible solutions. Some applications might > >>want to specify their own particular behaviour, but I see several > >>reasons why an administrator may want to specify a default. > >> > >>Using DHCP may be one solution. The only alternative available today, > >>is to log into every single host and run each host's OS specific > >>commands to change the policy. This might work for hosts that are > >>centrally administrated at that site. It would not work for hosts > >>visiting that network or under different management. > > > > > > A possibility for the future (realizing it does not presently exist) > > seems to be the creation of a new Router Advertisement option. This > > could be something that would be received and used by clients of both > > DHCPv6 and SLAC. > > > > Using DHCP to distribute RFC 3484 address selection policies would seem > > to work for DHCP clients, yet not for SLAC clients. > > > > I'd guess that it may not be necessary to define a new ND option to > manage the preferences of prefixes, as there are 37 bits unallocated > in the Prefix Information Option (32 bit Reserved2 field + remnant of > Reserved1 field) [RFC3775 S7.2, RFC2461 S4.6.2].
Good point Greg. The 38 unallocated bits spread over the two Reserved fields would seem to be sufficient. I was taking the admittedly somewhat narrow view that the Prefix Information Option was only meant to specify on-link prefixes and/or those that are meant to be used for autoconfiguration (RFC 2461, 4.2). Either using the heretofore unused bits in the Prefix Information Option, or the creation of another option (say, 'Address Selection Option') would be fine with me. > I'd suggest that if preferences are all that's needed, then the > function matches that for which the options are used now. Are preferences all that are needed here? It seems that the question of how hosts would handle such an option also needs to be answered. > Greg Tim 1Sam16:7 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
