Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 wrote:
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?
Come on, I am not here to debug a specification, no?
I think the questions should be is there merit in the proposal?
The proposal has merit. ICMPv6 could carry prefixes.
Does it basically work?
It could.
What needs to be modified for it to work?
What do you think?
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.
Which are those situations?
DHCPv6 software is widely available. Most run in userspace. Most
parts of ICMPv6 on most platforms runs in kernel space. It's easier to
implement in userspace.
What are the situations you think of?
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.
What is the potential scope of this deployment? How large? Any
interoperability needs between any two manufacturers.
It does not propose to replace the dhcpv6 based proposal.
What are the situations where DHCPv6-PD does work ok?
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
