On 11-aug-2007, at 1:39, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
Interface addresses are completely SEPARATE from routing information.
Please do NOT confuse the two. This has been a source of confusion for
many IPv6 implementors who know IPv4.
The configuration of addresses for an interface MUST NOT be tied to
the
configuration of prefix information for routing.
I disagree. For better or for worse, the notion of a subnet mask
going along with an interface address is deeply ingrained in the way
IP is implemented. Separating the two for no apparent reason is a bad
idea.
Just because a prefix
is on a link, does not mean the interface necessarily has an
address for
that prefix (it may have none, 1, or many).
Sure, that part is not a problem.
Just because an interface
has an address, does not mean that the system has any prefix
information
for a prefix that "contains" that address.
Disagree here. How does it make sense to have an address on an
interface and no knowledge about what other systems are directly
connected to that interface? Note that "no knowledge" isn't the same
thing as "assuming /128". I don't agree with the latter all that much
either, but you still know SOMETHING in that case.
And, a node should support both SLACC and DHCPv6 as "The two
methods are
complementary but not mutually exclusive."
I'm sure there are cases where DHCPv6 is very useful, but _I_ don't
want it on my network. IPv6 specifications and implementations
without DHCPv6 have been around for the better part of a decade, so
requiring DHCPv6 now seems curious at best. In other words: DHCPv6
should be optional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
