Hi Fortune, Why extend RA to achieve something that's already available through DHCPv6 (a proven operational model) ?
-- Shree -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fortune HUANG Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 6:32 PM To: 'Brian Haberman'; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the prefixesallocated from different prefix pools Hi Brian, Thank you very much for your comments. With your comments, I realize that the User Class Option defined in RFC 3004 allows much flexibility because the User Class value is an opaque field and implementation specific. Without a centralized control point, the value of the User Class can not be well maintained. So I agree with you that the User Class Option is better managed in the centralized approach like DHCPv6 and the User Class can not be introduced to RA in the same way as defined in RFC 3004. So I think if we would like to extend the RA or PIO option, we would need unified or global values for the service types (not using the User Class in this case). That is to say, the service types associated with the prefix should be allocated by IANA. What do you think? Would this approach be better? Thanks again! Best regards, Fortune -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------