Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
And the standardization of this option will then be used as an
excuse for succeeding violation like "XXX server address ND
option" for arbitrary "XXX" protocols.
[snip]
Hmm...I cannot find background information about the "design
principle" on the net, either. It may be just an misunderstanding of
mine, in which case, yes, the above concern is resolved (I might then
propose a DHCPv6 server address RA option:-).
Feel free :-)
I think this raises an interesting point; there are many DHCP options that
would make sense to include in an RA -- basically all of the
non-client-specific ones. I, like Tatuya, had thought there was some
long-standing antipathy to doing that, but if not, why stop at just DNS
servers?
There's two general solutions to this which would remove the need for DHCPv6
in most cases where it's needed today:
1. Create an new RA option that can contain arbitrary DHCPv6 options, or
2. Import a specific list of DHCP options and assign them new RA option
numbers.
If we present a solution just for DNS, are we going to have to work on a
dozen or more of these drafts, one each for DNS, NBNS, NTP, TFTP, etc?
Let's either solve all of the problems or none of them. I have a strong
preference for the former, as autoconfig doesn't make much operational sense
if I still have to deploy DHCPv6 to get my hosts to boot.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
