> The prefix delegation document is one of the documents that is set as > priority for ipv6 WG, as it appears in the updated charter. However, > in the same time, zerouter works on the subnet assignment topic. Even > if the zerouter charter is to be extended, the subnet allocation topic > will remain one of importance and presentations of solutions have been > made in Atlanta in this context. Zerouter limits its scope to > solutions that support 10s of links networks. If we consider that > prefix delegation is to be deployed mainly in SOHOs (as big companies > will certainly manage their subnet allocation differently), then the > requirements document could fit in the work provided by > zerouter... therefore, leading to move the requirements document from > ipv6 to zerouter... Moreover, apart from the DHCPv6-option and RA > proxy solutions, the other solutions for prefix delegation are no WG > items, so they are actually considered as interesting documents for > zerouter. Wouldn't it be better (apart from the DHCP solution which is > DHCP specific) to gather all this work and propositions in zerouter ?
I don't think so. Prefix delegation and router auto-configuration are different problems. Prefix delegation is trying to solve the problem of delegating a prefix across an administrative boundary between two routers. Zerorouter is working on the much larger problem of auto-configuring routers within a domain of arbitrary complex topology. Zerorouter may need prefix delegation, and PD solutions may be a part of the total zerorouter solution. /ot -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
