Hi Greg, > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:15 PM > To: Ralph Droms > Cc: timothy enos; 'Stig Venaas'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Solutions for distributing RFC 3484 address selection > policies > > Hi Ralph, > > Ralph Droms wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 01:40 -0400, timothy enos wrote: > > > >>[...] > >>One thing is that in using DHCPv6, all DHCPv6 clients on the link will > >>get the same policy. Also, IMO it wouldn't always be bad for all hosts > >>on a link (DHCPv6 or otherwise) to get the same policy. > > > > > > It's not the case that all DHCPv6 clients on a link need to be > > configured with the same policy; the DHCPv6 server can return a specific > > (and potentially different) policy for each client. > > I agree that this is possible, and may be valid.
Under what circumstances would this be preferable and/or recommended? That any given configuration is valid (syntactically, and doesn't break any RFC rules) doesn't mean it should be implemented. > > Is this what people want to use the proposed option for, though? > Or are they just interested in providing an information service about > the advertised prefixes? Personally, I'd like to see the policy be more than just an information service about the advertised prefixes. > > Greg -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
