[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date:
2006/07/28 Fri AM 10:34:22 CDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:
"Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: Re: IPv6 PD
>From: Alexandru Petrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/07/28 Fri AM 10:34:22 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: IPv6 P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Fred/all,
The former subject line became far too unwieldy, and the subject of IPv6
referred to in the attached exchange is of interest.
IPv6 PD is between two routers, not a router and an end host. Using ISP parlance, the delegating router is the ISP PE (delegating
> Well, why do you need DHCPv6 then? Just use the same provisioning
> system for giving out address space that was used to configure the
> tunnel.
DHCPv6 already provides an excellent provisioning system for this; see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-autoconf-netlmm-dhcp-0
2
On 27-jul-2006, at 18:46, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Yeah right. Maybe my iPod will become a router in the future. Better
get a prefix for it now.
I don't see anything wrong with a low-end device being a router.
Me neither, but that doesn't mean all low-end devices need IPv6
address space jus
The dhc WG is extending DHCPv6 PD to work across relay agents:
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-00.txt
- Ralph
On 7/27/06 7:11 AM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, this only works when the server and client
> are on the same link, while normal DHCP can be done o
> Yeah right. Maybe my iPod will become a router in the future. Better
> get a prefix for it now.
I don't see anything wrong with a low-end device being a router.
> Also, this only works when the server and client
> are on the same link,
I don't see anything wrong with the "link" being a tu
On 25-jul-2006, at 17:41, Templin, Fred L wrote:
The point of router vs end host is really aside from the original
question of whether DHCPv6 would be useful for anything, and prefix
delegation was cited as an example where DHCPv6 might be useful.
That said, even though the RFC3633 text is co
Hi Tim,
> IPv6 PD is between two routers, not a router and an end host.
> Using ISP parlance, the delegating router is the ISP PE
> (delegating) router and the requesting router is the CE router.
The point of router vs end host is really aside from the original
question of whether DHC
Good morning all. AFAIK, there is currently no defined way (other than via
DHCPv6) to do IPv6 PD. It may well be that between a PE and CE, DHCPv6 is
neither required nor desired, but PD is.
Over the past twelve months or so there has been some interest in ICMPv6 PD
expressed to me. I&#
Hi Fred/all,
The former subject line became far too unwieldy, and the subject of IPv6
referred to in the attached exchange is of interest.
IPv6 PD is between two routers, not a router and an end host. Using ISP
parlance, the delegating router is the ISP PE (delegating) router and the
11 matches
Mail list logo
