> We are soliciting reviews for this SUNSET4 draft:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4-00
>
> In a nutshell, it defines DHCPv6 and RA options indicating to the host
> that IPv4 is not available.
It seems to me that options relating to IPv4 don't belong in RA/DHCPv6
-- they belong in DHCPv4. Having a degenerate DHCPv4 server that just
NAKs every request would appear to solve all of the problems in Section 3.
The main point is that having a dedicated DHCPv4-NAK-ing server avoids
the need to configure all IPv6 routers with IPv4-related information
-- a serious operational concern if you have many IPv6 routers on a single
link.
(To be fair, you might need a new DHCPv4 option that says "do not try
to contact any other DHCPv4 servers" to solve your problems 3.1/3.2.
But then, I'd like to see some operational experience that shows that it
is a problem in practice.)
-- Juliusz (who wishes people would stop dumping gazillions of unrelated
options into existing protocols)
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
