Replying based on my understanding > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com] > Sent: 05 March 2010 08:02 > To: Wojciech Dec (wdec) > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option > > > Woj, > > Three questions for the group: > 1. Is there a practical limit to the number of route entries?
Woj> In theory the limit is set by the max DHCPv6 message size (which could be fragmented). In practice, folks interested in this mechanism want just a couple of routes to be passed. 2. Is there a practical need to pad in DHCP? Woj> Section 22.1 of rfc3315 states that the options length field is expressed in octets, hence there appears to be a need to pad to the octet boundary. 3. Would it be better to provide a seed address into some sort of routing function so that the information can change without having to monkey with DHCP? Woj> A CPE/RG routing protocol would indeed be preferable, but operator feedback on using these has generally been negative, as proven by scant deployments. -Woj. > > Thanks, > > Eliot > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
