>> They are already optional. Those people who don't want to use ND/RAs are >> likely to already have knobs to switch them off (Cisco switch off RAs by >> default on some interface types already) and will have static >> configuration mechanisms. > > .. and what (I, and others) are saying is that we would like DHCPv6 to be > able to do the same "static" configuration.
=> But you're saying that as an operator need, when in fact your rationale is to reduce vendor code. Is any vendor complaining about this? Is this an operational need or is the problem that L2 device vendors told you they they won't support those features? It would be good to know eactly where the problem lies. Stating that you don't want "L2 devices to filter those messages" isn't a problem description. If none of your devices support it but you can get devices that do, then it's a product roadmap issue. I'm trying to understand where the problem is. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
