So I agree we should press ahead and get operational experience with DHCPv6 in real deployments. If there are clear gaps, then we can work on the RA (or an alternative) method. Well-known site locals are now off the table.
Wrong. It's ND which is off the table.
It's possible the RA-based approach might be better suited to environments where there isn't an "operator" managing a DHCPv6 server, where basic connectivity and the requirement for a DNS resolver is all that is needed?
But I agree at present it is not clear that we can justify two methods until
specific cases where the RA approach is advntageous are identified, from
operational experience.
It is clear.
Masataka Ohta
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
