On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 05:31:54PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > In this case, the DHCPv6 server (or a relay, which would also rely on > a router and wouldn't work in this situation anyway) can send out an > RA with the router lifetime being 0 and with a prefix information > option. The server could actually keep sending such minimum RA, > whether or not other routers are active.
As my own peculiar brand of server implementer, this means a few things that I would wind up doing (can't speak for other implementors); I would have to implement at least the RA message, and probably also reception of RS messages, within my DHCPv6 server software (so as to ease and correct administrator configuration). I would, in order to ensure the offered configuration was usable at the moment it was delivered, and unable to sense the presence or absence of prefix configuration within the client, have to follow every DHCPv6 Reply with an RA (with maybe some optimization later). When I look at it that way, again as my own personal breed of DHCPv6 server implementor, it is far easier for me to adopt a new configuration option now (at a time when DHCPv6 deployment is still beginning and malleable), than it is to implement a great deal more software. It's the difference between one line in a table of option formats in our software, and whole sections of new code, more sockets to open, maintain, etc. As my own peculiar brand of client implementer, this also means at least one thing that I would wind up doing. In this case, we cannot predict that other server implementors will offer RA (it certainly is not stated in RFC 3315). So I would still default to /64 sized subnet masks. I have not made up my mind on whether I would have to implement router solicitation in the client, or what I would have the client do when it reached a bound sate without prefix configuration. It is my opinion that when you take the long view in maintenance of these protocols and networks, the only easy way out is to provide a single configuration protocol. It is a vast DHCPv6 client simplification to obsolete RA, and run the client upon interface initialization. Much more of a gain than the extra implementation in new options (which are just a few entries in a table and some shell scripting). -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
pgpPtyy3QMEnP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
