On 2011-12-22 07:37, Doug Barton wrote: > On 12/19/2011 5:24 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have posted a new draft that extends Router Advertisements to >> include information about the one or more NTP servers present in the >> network. This is useful where the delays in acquiring server >> addresses and communicating with the servers are critical (mobile >> environment for example). > > Sort of surprised that no one else has responded so far, but I'll bite. > Quite simply, "no." Slightly less simply, "use DHCP since that's what > it's for." > > I'm happy to expound on the evils of "camel's nose already too far under > the tent," etc.
There is of course a broader issue here, illustrated by the endless loop over in MIF about draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option. What is the intended scope of the RA mechanism? I was a strong proponent of standardising the DNS server option in RA, because it is an absolute requirement for even the most minimal host to get onto the Internet. But I am also a strong proponent of -dhcpv6-route-option, because it seems clear that more complex environments will inevitably require the extensibility that comes with DHCPv6. I think we need a standards track document that defines the maximum scope of the RA mechanism once and for all. Personally I would probably freeze it where it is today, but we need a reasoned architectural decision about this. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
