On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Ole Troan wrote: > > cover even all the theoretical cases. I'd much rather see a very simple > > basic version of prefix delegation which can be used to get started. > > There's no way we could anticipate what will be needed in 3-5 years and we > > could further define the extensions when they're needed. > > well, I have to disagree with you there. keeping PD consistent with > other DHCP options makes for an easier understanding of how it works > and for a simpler implementation. the fundamental idea behind using > DHCP for PD is to re-use the existing DHCP infrastructure including > option semantics. Distilled into one line: "Prefix Delegation with > DHCP is done in exactly the same way as address assignment with DHCP is".
I can live with that. I hear many (two sets of groups) are implementing DHCPv6 either for: - configuration parameters - prefix delegation (for the lack of alternatives) If you don't want address assignment in DHCP, doing it the same way in PD may seem like a burden. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
