Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
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".
Right, encapsulating DHCPv6 options in RA/RS would transform RA/RS into
DHCPv6 itself. RS/RA is the first thing people see when they come to
IPv6. It's so magic that it seems to be able to solve many problems.
It's a common temptation to add stuff into RA. That said.
We could try to document what are the current options to convey a prefix
to a terminal such that it can reuse that prefix for itself and for others.
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
