Leino, Tammy wrote:
> I appreciate everyone's comments and advice. I am glad to see such
> passion for IPv6 and support of people in need.
You shouldn't.
You SHOULD remember that ND is *NOT* mandately for IPv6.
ND is, despite a lot of effort to fix it in some limited cases (an
obvious example is "7.5. Changes to Sending Router Advertisements"
of RFC 3775), so broken that even people having passion for IPv6 can
not dare to say to mandate ND.
ND is a poorly designed protcol designed by a committee named IETF.
Instead, any IPv6 related protocols, including DHCP, should consider
*LUCKY* hosts on links *WITHOUT* any ND.
> I just want to voice my opinion that I feel a DHCPv6 prefix length
> option and default router option would be useful.
Prefix length is a health idea.
However, unfortunately for you, the concept of "default router", which
is developped by a committee named IETF, is a fatal violation of the
end to end principle of the Internet.
That is, end nodes of the Internet, definitely not so-called default
routers adjacent to them, MUST directly control the communication
without being bothered by so-called default routers.
To avoid fatal dameges of ND on links using ND, you can make your
host a router, though it will cause other problems (using default
route to shrink a routing table is another violation of the end to
end principle, which requires solutions not addressed by IPv6).
Masataka Ohta
PS
FYI, the current multicast specification is as broken as ND that you
should avoid both of them. Eg, broken multicast requires full of
configurations that DHCP should avoid them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
