Hi Tim, > IPv6 PD is between two routers, not a router and an end host. > Using ISP parlance, the delegating router is the ISP PE > (delegating) router and the requesting router is the CE router.
The point of router vs end host is really aside from the original question of whether DHCPv6 would be useful for anything, and prefix delegation was cited as an example where DHCPv6 might be useful. That said, even though the RFC3633 text is couched in terms of "delegating router" and "requesting router", I don't see anything wrong with the "requesting router" being an end host that may/may not become a router at some point in the future. A "requesting router" could, for example, request a /64 and then assign one or a few addresses from the /64 to its interfaces w/o ever actually becoming a router. I also don't see anything wrong with an end host using DHCP prefix delegation to request a /128, but I wouldn't be surprised if this has already been discussed and/or debated elsewhere. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
