Actually there is an operational simplicity case to be made for hosts doing
PD. In the scenario where the ISP wants to provide a 1:1 mapping between
customer & prefix, but the customer hasn't acquired a router yet. This can
be done with discrete RAs when customers are on independent interf
Prefix delegation is a somewhat different animal than your average DHCP lookup. It
only makes sense in routers, not hosts. In fact, it is unclear whether the DHCP server
for prefix delegation should be the same as the DHCP server for DNS configuration. I
think we should leave prefix del
On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 08:20, Tim Chown wrote:
> I agree. This point has been made in previous discussions of the draft...
I agree as well. There are environments where load balancing is
desirable and environments where is is not desirable. MAY is the right
word for this circumstance.
tim
Yes, your original analysis is correct...
Seems like the protocol associated with the 'O' bit should be RFC 3736;
there is no particular advantage to using the 4 message exchange of RFC 3315
for "other configuration information". The only potential advantage would
be if there is ever a need for "
(changing the subject)
> On Sat, 08 May 2004 23:39:20 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I think the O flag (if we keep it!) should simply specify DHCPv6, with no
>> implication about the way in which DHCPv6 is used.
>> "Stateless DHCPv6" is simply a way to use some of
I agree. This point has been made in previous discussions of the draft...
Tim
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 03:37:24PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> i have problem understanding the intent of first paragraph of section 2.
>
> >When a host chooses from multiple equivalent routers, it
