Probably what I want to say is that it'd the best idea to have one "lite-weight" solution to solve major requirements, which is compatible for a "full-covered" solution to solve also minor requiremnts. To achieve this, there seems three solutions:
1) DNCP (DHCP-lite) as a "lite-weight", DHCP as a "full-covered" 2) APD as a "lite-weight", APD-heavy as a "full-covered" 3) RA+PDopt as a "lite-weight", RA+PDopt-heavy as a "full covered" Ralf is writing DNCP, and currently nobody seems writing APD-heavy nor RA+PDopt-heavy. > > No. PPPext solves the issue only when you use PPP. That means you need > > another solution when you don't use PPP, and that makes it difficult to > > achieve zero-configuration enviroment. > > Which is why I said 'PPP connections'. :-) OK, I see :-) > > I think APD is simple enough, and DNCP is also simple enough. Technically > > there is almost no difference between DNCP and APD. > > True, but APD has IMO unnecessary components of stateful nature, like > prefix return message. Now I see what you mean by "statefull" :-) I agree with you that you don't need "prefix return" like messages when you assume only dedicated(fixed) prefix and flat rate access services, and I guess that is often the case. But if you assume also non-dedicated(dynamic?) prefix and non-flat rate(per time?) access services, for exapmle, remote access or roaming services, your customers probably want "prefix return" like messages, for exapmle when they want to temporalily stop using IPv6 access to save mony but continue to use IPv4 access. # I don't like this kind of services personally :-), but we should avoid killing any posibility of new business models. > > It assumes only P-to-P enviroment. Again you need another solution for > > non-P-to-P enviroment. Our goal is to achieve auto-configuration, right? > > Then, how dose a CPE know whether it is conneted to P-to-P link or P-to-MP > > link automatically? > > Prefix Delegation need not be (IMO) completely automatic: it's completely > ok to have to add a 'request-prefix interface eth0', 'request-prefix > interface any', or whatever in the configuration of the CPE. I agree with you that Prefix Delegation doesn't have to be 100% automatic. But I still don't think that it is a better idea to define different mechanisms for P-to-P and non-P-to-P respectively, because, for example, it is difficlt for a CPE to know whether its eth0 is connceted to P-to-P ethernet or non-P-to-P ethernet. ---Toshi Yamasaki / NTT Communications -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
