Pekka, > 2) Multiple IA_PD looks unnecessarily complex. Are there any valid > reasons why it wouldn't be just enough to have only one IA_PD per > requesting router? (The option to and subsequent complexity of) > generating one for each interface seems like a completely unnecessary > feature to me -- it's the router which should be doing prefix delegation > to it's downstream interfaces!
let me pick this one up from the start. the reasons for allowing multiple IA_PDs are: - consistency with address assignment as you can use multiple IA_NAs - future-proofing. in the ISP/user scenario I do see little need for multiple IA_PDs. if PD is used within an administrative domain assigning prefixes to downstream interfaces may make more sense it does add some complexity, and I think we've made it pretty clear in the draft that the typical usage will be to use one IA_PD. we just didn't want to close the door on possible future uses of the protocol. /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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
