Hi Shree,

Sorry for the late reply because I was on a bussiness trip yesterday.

The reason I propose to extend RA is because that DHCPv6 may not be
available in some scenario.
If the extension is simple enough, it may be worthy.


Best regards,
Fortune
 

-----Original Message-----
From: JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK)
[mailto:shrinivas_ashok.jo...@alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:54 PM
To: Fortune HUANG; 'Brian Haberman'; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the
prefixesallocated from different prefix pools

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to