In your letter dated Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:09:48 -0500 you wrote: >On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Philip Homburg <[email protected]> wro >te: >> On the other hand, if you need have RAs signal suspend and resume of IPv4 >> you are looking at rewriting the management code of lots of different Linux >> distibutions (including various embedded ones) and many operating systems. > >Yes. That will be a really good outcome.
You really think people are going to rewrite Linux network config for some weird edge case? >I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for your protestations about DHCPv4 clients i >n embedded applications. If it's an RPi, you can run a full-featured DHCPv4/D >HCPv6 implementation that works, so there's no excuse for running one that does >n't. If it's a tiny sensor, you want to use 6lowpan anyway, so you're not run >ning DHCPv4 _or_ DHCPv6. And you also always have the option of just ignoring > the option if you are implementing something that really is an edge case. Then you don't. I'm only saying that from my perspective, changing DHCPv4 is the best technical solution. Now of course, the IETF can pick the option that requires serious changes in many operating systems, creates very interesting attacks, etc. Then that's just too bad. Note, this is an edge case. Operating systems hardly benefit from this option, but they will get the full load of any security issues. So my guess is that staying on the RA/DHCPv6 route will just seriously delay the implementation of this option. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
