Hi Fortune, Perhaps TR-177 discussion on broadband forum would be a more appropriate place for this discussion.
If operational model is clear (i.e. which parameters need to be provided through RA) not just service/prefix but also DNS, SNTP information, VLAN/service etc then a proposal combining all the options in a draft can be made to WG. -- Shree -----Original Message----- From: Fortune HUANG [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:30 AM To: JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK); 'Brian Haberman'; [email protected] Subject: RE: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the prefixesallocated from different prefix pools Hi Shree, Sorry for the late reply because I was on a bussiness trip yesterday. The reason I propose to extend RA is because that DHCPv6 may not be available in some scenario. If the extension is simple enough, it may be worthy. Best regards, Fortune -----Original Message----- From: JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:54 PM To: Fortune HUANG; 'Brian Haberman'; [email protected] Subject: RE: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the prefixesallocated from different prefix pools Hi Fortune, Why extend RA to achieve something that's already available through DHCPv6 (a proven operational model) ? -- Shree -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
