Hi Doug,
On 10-09-08 02:02 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 09/07/2010 06:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including
per host prefixes/options) how long before options are added so SLAAC
becomes an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
This is the basis of my opposition to adopting the draft (expressed
neatly here, as well as by other authors in this thread).
As I said in my response to Shree, the goal is to provide support for
SLAAC-only IPv6 clients. It is not a practical option to require support
for stateful DHCPv6 for clients that are no longer supported (e.g. XP).
I agree that going forward, stateful DHCPv6 will be a solution for this
problem.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
