>From: Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/23 Wed PM 05:54:07 CDT
>To: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
>Subject: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Satya,
You put this so much better than I have, I think. Thank you!
Tim
Rom 8:28
>Ralph,
>Implementation and test effort is always there whether it is a existing
>protocol or a new protocol to catch implementation specific bugs. Even
>if one licenses a particular implementation, there is always testing
>involved though the effort can be less focused on testing the licensed
>components but the integrated system. If the proposal has merit and
>looks appealing, implementations will come.
>
>What we would like to know now is are there any bugs in the proposal
>being specified? I think the questions should be is there merit in the
>proposal? Does it basically work? What needs to be modified for it to
>work? Our claim is that there are situations and configurations where
>DHCPv6 may not be enabled or available and hence PD process can not
>depend on dhcp protocol. If the PD mechanism can be run utilizing more
>basic and fundamental components of the ipv6 stack, why not? If it
>basically works, and if implementers believe that it is simpler and easy
>to implement and deploy, it will get used. It does not propose to
>replace the dhcpv6 based proposal.
>
>- Satya Rao
>Mobile Devices Technology Office
>Motorola
>Tel: 512-996-6781
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:31 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: Durand, Alain; IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>>
>> Tim - The answer to your exact question is, of course, yes.
>> But, in my opinion, that question is not the right starting
>> point for our conversation.
>>
>> A better question to start with, which we certainly ought to
>> ask as members of an engineering organization like the IETF,
>> is: "Is there a sufficiently large set of scenarios and use
>> cases where the requirements cannot be met by DHCPv6 PD to
>> warrant the investment of resources to design, specify,
>> publish, implement and test an entirely new protocol or
>> protocol extension?".
>>
>> The IETF has spent far too much effort in defining
>> theoretically possible protocols.
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:59 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Do you believe that it is theoretically possible that
>> DHCPv6 PD would
>> > be "neither required nor desired"? It is here that I'd like
>> to start
>> > this portion of our conversation.
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
