Le 19/10/2012 10:22, Philipp Kern a écrit :
Mikael,
am Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:08:39AM +0200 hast du folgendes
geschrieben:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in
DHCPv6-PD into ND? If code needs to be changed, why can't that code
change be to implement existing standard instead of implementing a
new standard?
Isn't ND handled by the kernel in a lot of OSes? Does prefix
delegation really belong there?
that reminds me of the RA/DHCPv6 for DNS recursor host configuration
in RFC4339, which provides advantages/disadvantages for shipping
this information by RDNSS vs. DHCPv6.
I agree. There is a certain similarity. And there still exist
parameters exclusively configured by DHCP while others exclusive to ND
(MTU, printers, more). As long as they exist trend will push to do at
one what the other does.
(let me add that I received a couple of private emails questioning the
necessity of ND PD even for vehicular environments, and citing ND PD
similar work some of which we still need to cite in our draft. I replied
privately but I am open to discussion on the mailing list as well.)
Listening.
Alex
Kind regards Philipp Kern
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
