Sheng,
I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed.
ND is required for router discovery, neighbour discovery etc anyway. and a
router on the link must be configured
with the onlink prefix regardless.
>>>
>-Original Message-
>From: Ole Trøan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:39 PM
>To: Sheng Jiang
>Cc: WG; IPv6 List
>Subject: Re: Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
>
>Sheng,
>
>>> I think the argum
Sheng,
>> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
>> DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed.
>> ND is required for router discovery, neighbour discovery etc anyway. and a
>> router on the link must be configured
>> with the onlink prefix regardless.
>>
>> while we can
Hi Ole,
> in general I think the use case presented is already supported by DHCPv6
> address assignment; the client puts
> the addresses it desire as hints in the IA_NA option in DHCPv6 requests.
>
> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
> DHCPv6-managed network withou
Sheng,
> Back in Atlanta, in DHC WG meeting, you said you would review the document.
> Could you give the comments?
I knew that would come back and haunt me. ;)
comments below. also included dhc and 6man
>> Draft: Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6
>> Presenter: Sheng Jiang
>> URL:http://
