> In your previous mail you wrote: > > "... The creation and management of that pool is > beyond the scope of this document, but it can be supposed that > minimalistically a Delegating Router will be statically configured > with a fixed pool." > > What I meant is that the pool used by the Delegating router, in which it > takes the prefix it delegates to Requesting routers, could be set using the > DHCPv6 option for prefix delegation. Actually, only static (I understand > "manual") configuration is considered. > > => this notion of static (DHCP terminology) / manual (common terminology) > allocation is more important than one can believe. The difference between > BOOTP and DHCP is the introduction of the dynamic (DHCP terminology) > allocation. My main concern about DHCPv6 is the dynamic allocation > makes sense only for a scarce resource: this is the case for IPv4 > addresses but definitively *not* for IPv6 addresses... So DHCPv6 is > basically useless (and in the real world not used at all :-).
I don't think either the ICMP PD or DHCPv6 PD drafts imply that the prefix lifetimes/leasetimes should be short. the ICMP PD draft makes a reference to delegating routers having a pool of prefixes to assign. this is perhaps an unfortunate choice of words. as it is proposed both DHCP PD and ICMP PD work in the same manner. both protocols run only on the link between delegating router and requesting router. there are a couple of ways the delegating router can use to get the prefix for the user. e.g from an AAA record, manually configured on the delegation router, from a DHCP server or from a locally configured pool. apart from a locally configured pool, where you lack stable storage, none of these imply "dynamic" allocation. both ICMP PD and DHCP PD _can_ be used for dynamic allocation but that is an operational choice. would you be happier if we renamed it to SNCP (Simple Node Configuration Protocol)? :-) for me this boils down to picking a packet format on the wire. DHCP offers a more flexible option format, is more extensible, has a defined relay mechanism, offers a Reconfigure mechanism so it is possible to poke the requesting router. I have no problem with using ICMP PD, my point is that as we move along it is going to look awfully much like DHCP. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
