Ralph and other DHCPv6 folks, Sorry, if I missed the deployment model where there is no router on the link. Could you please articulate what commercially deployed IPv6 services will not include an IPv6 router?
Thanks. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:49 PM To: Francis Dupont Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Erik Nordmark; IPV6 List Mailing; Suresh Krishnan Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link Francis - In my opinion, the important problem scenario is when the host has no on-link prefix information AND the host has no default router. This is most likely to happen when there are no RAs (likely because there is no router on the link), and can also happen when there are no default routers in any received RAs. I agree that there is an issue in this problem scenario and one solution would be to include prefix information in DHCPv6 messages. If v6ops or 6man were to determine that carrying prefix information in DHCPv6 is useful, the dhc WG would be happy to define an appropriate extension to DHCPv6. - Ralph On Dec 5, 2007, at Dec 5, 2007,5:39 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > As you've already entered in this topics, according to DHCPv6 address > assignment users the current situation where on links without RAs or > with RAs without PIOs can be solved into two bad ways: > - assume a 128 bit prefix length: not incorrect but surely inefficient > so often qualified as stupid > - assume a 64 bit prefix length: works almost everywhere but not > everywhere so can be incorrect. > So please don't believe everybody happy with current DHCPv6... > > Regards > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PS: I've personally used DHCPv6 only for Prefix Delegation so I > reflect a concern from other people. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
