Ralph, Implementation and test effort is always there whether it is a existing protocol or a new protocol to catch implementation specific bugs. Even if one licenses a particular implementation, there is always testing involved though the effort can be less focused on testing the licensed components but the integrated system. If the proposal has merit and looks appealing, implementations will come.
What we would like to know now is are there any bugs in the proposal being specified? I think the questions should be is there merit in the proposal? Does it basically work? What needs to be modified for it to work? Our claim is that there are situations and configurations where DHCPv6 may not be enabled or available and hence PD process can not depend on dhcp protocol. If the PD mechanism can be run utilizing more basic and fundamental components of the ipv6 stack, why not? If it basically works, and if implementers believe that it is simpler and easy to implement and deploy, it will get used. It does not propose to replace the dhcpv6 based proposal. - Satya Rao Mobile Devices Technology Office Motorola Tel: 512-996-6781 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Durand, Alain; IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6 > > Tim - The answer to your exact question is, of course, yes. > But, in my opinion, that question is not the right starting > point for our conversation. > > A better question to start with, which we certainly ought to > ask as members of an engineering organization like the IETF, > is: "Is there a sufficiently large set of scenarios and use > cases where the requirements cannot be met by DHCPv6 PD to > warrant the investment of resources to design, specify, > publish, implement and test an entirely new protocol or > protocol extension?". > > The IETF has spent far too much effort in defining > theoretically possible protocols. > > - Ralph > > On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:59 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > Do you believe that it is theoretically possible that > DHCPv6 PD would > > be "neither required nor desired"? It is here that I'd like > to start > > this portion of our conversation. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
