On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 10 jun 2011, at 16:28, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >>> Ok, so now we've identified the problem. > >>> How exactly does adding default gateway information to DHCPv6 solve this >>> problem? > >> Please go back and re-read my original scenario and think about it. > > I don't have to, as you restate pretty much all of it here... > > So we agree on the problem. Now the only thing we have to do is come up with > a solution that everybody likes. In a greenfield situation that solution > could be "compile DHCPv4 for 128 bits" but guess what, we have "legacy" IPv6 > systems that aren't compatible with that, and we want results before those > systems are all killed off.
Seems to me that adding a routing information option to DHCPv6 solves the problem without breaking the legacy hosts. What's wrong with that idea? Owen
