Markku,
> I would like to implement the above, but it is somewhat hard when
> there is no assigned type code from IANA. What does it require for
> IANA to assign a type code? (same goes with the preferred route
> option).
There's a proposal for early IANA assignment, see:
Title
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : RBridges: Transparent Routing
Author(s) : R. Perlman, et al.
Filename: draft-perlman-rbridge-00.txt
Pages : 0
Date: 2004-5-
> I would like to implement the above, but it is somewhat hard when
> there is no assigned type code from IANA. What does it require for
> IANA to assign a type code? (same goes with the preferred route
> option).
AFAIC, RFC-Editor is responsible for the IANA assignment, thus
this draft must be ac
First of all, thanks for your interest.
Recently, DNSOP working group decided to write an Information RFC
describing "IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server Information Approaches";
a) RA option, b) DHCPv6 option, and c) Well-known anycast addresses.
After this RFC is published, I hope that our RA
On May 3, 2004, at 5:59 AM, Bernie Volz wrote:
You can certainly have hosts that always run DHCPv6, or at least policy
settings that would allow it on a host.
Or the opposite... That is, hosts that have a policy to not turn DHCPv6
on
even when receiving O or M.
- Alain.
> Why have hosts needless generate periodic DHCP traffic when
> there is no DHCP server present? True that in DHCPv6 the
> impact is much more minor as multicasting is used (in DHCPv4
> all hosts on the network receive the packets because they are
> broadcast), but it still seems better to me
I would like to implement the above, but it is somewhat hard when
there is no assigned type code from IANA. What does it require for
IANA to assign a type code? (same goes with the preferred route
option).
In my view the router solicitation could be viewed as "service
solicitation", and in additio
Alain:
And, if hosts just run DHCPv6 anyway, it makes the job of the rogue server
user even easier - since it need not even bother to generate RAs. So,
security is no better or worse. It may even be slightly better if they need
to generate the RAs since a) it is more work (especially if SEND is us
Arun,
before I write up a few comments I'd like to remark that I don't like
the idea of delegating prefixes using ICMPv6 because I don't see how
this offers different/better/more versatile features compared to
DHCPv6-PD. Especially since you need a state machinery or cache for this
mechanism to ma
