On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > As I've said before in reference to the recursive name server discovery > > discussion, I don't believe it benefits the network operations community > > to have multiple solutions to these kind of requirements. > > The vendor community would probably agree.
Probably, except for those vendors who would rather not want to be required to implement DHCPv6 for tasks {Foo, Bar, ....}.
The network architect/engineer/admin (customer) community should be considered here, as well. Are there any customers that have said "DHCPv6 PD is too complex, we want something simpler"? I haven't heard from any.
The question is really whether DHCPv6 is a feasible requirement in *every* scenario where you'd desire prefix delegation, [DNS discovery], and [whatnot]. If there is consensus that the answer is "yes", we can focus the energies elsewhere. But I do not think there is such concensus (even a rough one; even if it might help).
I think the question is really "Do the network architects/engineers/admins (customers) want something simpler"? We don't need to make that decision for them.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- Ralph
- Ralph
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
