Rao Satyanarayana wrote: > ... > What we would like to know now is are there any bugs in the proposal > being specified?
Routers do not currently *send* RS messages. Bug == "ICMPv6 is an integral part of the IPv6 stack and hence the proposed mechanism for Prefix Delegation does not require any additional components or applications on either the requester or the delegator for prefix delegation purposes" > I think the questions should be is there merit in the > proposal? That is true, but your section 3 does not establish that merit. > Does it basically work? Probably. > What needs to be modified for it to work? The fundamental ND implementation in the CPE router. > 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. You assert that without attribution. As Ole pointed out you end up reinventing DHCP, but masking it behind an ICMP packet format. > If the PD mechanism can be run utilizing more > basic and fundamental components of the ipv6 stack, why not? That would be fine if those components actually exist. The ability to receive RS and send RA is not the same as what this proposal calls for. > 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. The state of DHCP-PD is somewhat irrelevant. The point is that multiple reviews of the document will have to be done before it makes it to RFC. You appear to be unwilling to expand on the fundamental justification, and would rather burn list bandwidth arguing your right to build something different. You need to explain why the DHCP-PD packet format is insufficient, or explain how your state machine sitting behind ICMP will be significantly simpler than a light-weight DHCP client. 'Significant customer demand' is an important metric, but it is not the only one. Start by showing some willingness to actually work within the IETF process by rev'ing the draft to put substantive detail in section 3. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
