-----Original Message----- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 4:18 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Randy Bush; ipv6 deployment prevention Subject: Re: Router redirects in Node Requirements document
>Fixing DHCPv6 and adding prefix-length/mask seems a much more elegant solution vs pushing redirect capability upon a large swath of devices. I and Wes disagree with adding any prefix length to DHCPv6. I believe Wes gave the reason to 6man mailer during the past 3 years. Rather than spend time to fish out the email, here is the text Wes that captures the gist of it. "The reason I think one separated prefix length from ND RA and DHCPv6 is that the router knows best what prefixes it can route to, and what is on-link/off-link, etc., because the router is responsible for the TOPOLOGY of the network. The DHCPv6 server knows best who is authorized to get an address, and what configuration information a client should get, because it is the CONFIGURATION/SECURITY authority. These are two separate concerns, and it is best to keep them separate. It's easier to manage TOPOLOGY in a distributed fashion. It's easier to manage CONFIGURATION/SECURITY in a centralized fashion." Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
