>If we're to compare, I'd compare the ICMPv6-PD effort with the RA option >to carry DNS Server effort. If things are to evolve quicker then we >could skip some intermediary steps.
Exactly. Why have two ways to the same thing! That's another effort that should be terminated. Gee, why don't we just encapsulate DHCPv6 options in RA/RS? Then, we'd solve all of these problems and be able to get rid of "DHCPv6". - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ralph Droms (rdroms) Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> We do not create alternative ways to >do the same thing, because >> doing so will burden >implementors with additional complexity and >> reduces >the likelihood that nodes can communicate >successfully. >> Picking a common way to do something is >the fundamental idea >> behind standards. > > In general that is true. However, for things such as IPv6 node > addressing we have DHCPv6 and SLAAC. The point is THAT there is >1 > way to do something (in this case IPv6 node addressing). It's not because there may exist several ways to skin a cat that there should also be several ways to skin a dog. If we're to compare, I'd compare the ICMPv6-PD effort with the RA option to carry DNS Server effort. If things are to evolve quicker then we could skip some intermediary steps. Alex -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
