Hi Fortune, On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:31:47 +0800 Fortune HUANG <fqhu...@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mark, > > As discussed in my previous emails, this is an improvement to RA. > 1) The service type of the prefix is the property of a prefix, it should be > carried in RA rather than stateless DHCP. > 2) The RA approach has the advantage that the server doesn't need to > maintain the states of each host, while the stateful DHCPv6 approach doesn't > have. > > So, according to the text you quoted, we should not reject this improvement. > This was the text I was referring to - "but also DNS, SNTP information, VLAN/service etc then a proposal combining all the options in a draft can be made to WG." I read that as a proposal is going to be made to provide all DHCPv6 options in RAs. Is that the case? Regards, Mark. > Best regards, > Fortune > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Smith [mailto:i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org] > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 4:57 PM > To: JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) > Cc: Fortune HUANG; 'Brian Haberman'; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the > prefixesallocated from different prefix pools > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:40:49 +0530 > "JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK)" > <shrinivas_ashok.jo...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > > > Hi Fortune, > > > > Perhaps TR-177 discussion on broadband forum would be a more appropriate > place for this discussion. > > > > If operational model is clear (i.e. which parameters need to be > > provided through RA) not just service/prefix but also DNS, SNTP > information, VLAN/service etc then a proposal combining all the options in a > draft can be made to WG. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1958.txt > > "Architectural Principles of the Internet" > > "3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one. > If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has > successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless > there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same > protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without > of course using this argument to reject improvements." > > > > -- > > Shree > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fortune HUANG [mailto:fqhu...@huawei.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:30 AM > > To: JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK); 'Brian Haberman'; > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the > > prefixesallocated from different prefix pools > > > > 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 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
