Francis - In my opinion, the important problem scenario is when the
host has no on-link prefix information AND the host has no default
router. This is most likely to happen when there are no RAs (likely
because there is no router on the link), and can also happen when
there are no default routers in any received RAs.
I agree that there is an issue in this problem scenario and one
solution would be to include prefix information in DHCPv6 messages.
If v6ops or 6man were to determine that carrying prefix information in
DHCPv6 is useful, the dhc WG would be happy to define an appropriate
extension to DHCPv6.
- Ralph
On Dec 5, 2007, at Dec 5, 2007,5:39 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
As you've already entered in this topics, according to DHCPv6 address
assignment users the current situation where on links without RAs or
with RAs without PIOs can be solved into two bad ways:
- assume a 128 bit prefix length: not incorrect but surely inefficient
so often qualified as stupid
- assume a 64 bit prefix length: works almost everywhere but not
everywhere so can be incorrect.
So please don't believe everybody happy with current DHCPv6...
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: I've personally used DHCPv6 only for Prefix Delegation so I
reflect
a concern from other people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
