Hi Suresh, I think multicast advantage of RAs is lost in case of point to point links anyways.
Regards, Behcet ----- Original Message ---- > From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> > To: Fortune HUANG <fqhu...@huawei.com> > Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org> > Sent: Fri, June 18, 2010 9:24:36 AM > Subject: Re: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the prefixes > allocated from different prefix pools > > 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:> ymailto="mailto:do...@dougbarton.us"; > href="mailto:do...@dougbarton.us";>do...@dougbarton.us] Sent: Friday, June > 18, 2010 9:42 AM > To: Fortune HUANG > Cc: > ymailto="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org"; > href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org";>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 > href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org";>ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: > href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6"; target=_blank > >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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
