Hi Fortune,
I have to agree with Brian, Mark and Doug here. SLAAC was conceived
for use in simple scenarios. The scenario you are describing is a bit
more complex. I think it calls for DHCPv6.
On a purely technical note, since the prefixes come from different pools
it is no longer possible to multicast RAs, and this takes away the
biggest advantage of using RAs. Hence any efficiency claim of using RAs
is completely lost. A DHCPv6 exchange will be equally if not more efficient.
Thanks
Suresh
On 10-06-17 10:31 PM, Fortune HUANG wrote:
Hi Doug,
Please note that "Fortune HUANG wants it to be that way" has never been used
as any kind of reason in this discussion by myself.
I also assume you are not using that "Doug doesn't want it to be that way"
as a valid reason not to take up the project, so please respond to my reason
as you quoted below if you like. Do you think that the service type of the
prefix should be classified to the prefix related configuration or not? If
yes, do you agree that it should be carried in RA in the stateless case?
Best regards,
Fortune
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Barton [mailto:do...@dougbarton.us]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 9:42 AM
To: Fortune HUANG
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the prefixes
allocated from different prefix pools
On 06/17/10 17:39, Fortune HUANG wrote:
Since the service type of the prefix should be classified to the
prefix related configuration, it should be carried in RA
... and what Mark, myself, and everyone else who have +1'ed our statements
is saying is that "Fortune HUANG wants it to be that way" is not a valid
reason for the working group to take up the project. I'm sorry to be so
blunt, but we've gone round on this a few times now and the message does not
seem to be sinking in. :) Given that you can already handle the case of
multiple prefixes with DHCP that is how this problem should be solved.
If you would like to demonstrate that the DHCP solution for this problem is
deficient in some way, that is a whole different topic, and you should start
a new thread with your demonstration of how and why it is deficient. Please
be sure to document your testing methodology so that we can review it and
attempt to reproduce the results ourselves.
Doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
