Pekka,
I like the idea of stateless DHCP for defaults configuration. Maybe
separating them would be the right thing, as long as it is clear that a
combined addrconf + defaults conf implementation is possible so not to
negatively impact near term deployment prospects.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:09 AM
Subject: Stateless DHCP and the DHCP draft
> Hi,
>
> Would it make sense to consider whether separating "stateless DHCPv6"
and
> the stateful part (~address assignment) to separate drafts would make
> sense?
>
> I think a lot more people would be confortable with DHCPv6 if it was
very
> simple and supported only the informational records most people would
only
> use.. and stateful address and such specified in a separate draft?
>
> Just a thought...
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
