On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Tim Chown wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > I don't think that anyone is assuming 100% automatic prefix generation > > like EUI64 IID generation: rather, I assume that in (at least almost) > > every case, the prefixes will be configured statically somewhere, along > > the lines "identifier/customer: prefix". > > Which is what DHCP(v6) is good at, and it may not be overkill if you also > want to run a v6 only network and also use DHCPv6 as your DSTM server, for > example.
I'll omit my comments about the marriage of DHCPv6 and DSTM from this forum :-). > > With stateful above I meant protocols which expect one to request a prefix > > and return it back, release it, return it back if no longer used, etc. -- > > consider router advertisements which aren't stateful in that manner. > > I think in many situations you'd expect a static prefix, but there may > also be situations where any prefix is OK and so a static dhcpv6 mapping is > not necessary. This might be useful in the MONET area to get a temporay > prefix for a mobile network, so we shouldn't perhaps constrain thinking to > fixed CPE? "non-stateful" manner does not necessary discount these: just advertise the prefix with e.g. lifetime of 60 seconds. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
