Hi Tim, In section 7.3 of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02, the second paragraph reads: "It may of course be possible to piggy back policy information to a host in a Router Advertisement message, though initial consensus seems to be that this is a less attractive approach." I think it would be more convincing if there were some text about the reason why the push model is a less attractive approach. This would also give people a chance to validate this initial consensue. Besides, I would be grateful if you could let me know why the second sentence of the paragraph has been removed, because I once thought this might be a possible solution. The removed sentence reads: "However, we may find that RAs may be a good place to indicate whether a default policy is in place or not, to avoid hosts requesting non-existent updates via DHCPv6." Thanks a lot! Best regards, Fortune
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
