On 25-jul-2006, at 17:41, Templin, Fred L wrote:
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.
Yeah right. Maybe my iPod will become a router in the future. Better get a prefix for it now.
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
There is a different mechanism for giving out individual addresses using DHCPv6 so this doesn't make much sense. This is just way too heavy a mechanism to use for individual hosts: you need to install routes for all delegated prefixes and possibly redistribute those in a routing protocol. Also, this only works when the server and client are on the same link, while normal DHCP can be done over several hops by having a router relay the DHCP messages.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
