Hi Thomas, On Thu, 26 May 2011 17:30:10 -0400 Thomas Narten <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Smith <[email protected]> writes: > > > I think relay should be a MUST. > > Let me ask a question. In IPv4, for typical SOHO routers, do they > support DHCP relay agent functionality? (My guess is no.) > I don't think they do, but I'm not sure why it matters. Aren't we talking about minimum IPv6 functionality that can be relied on being present? What has been deployed in IPv4 can be a guide (as can the past deployment of Appletalk and IPX where IPv6 has similar capabilities), but I don't think IPv4 deployment should be an overarching constraint on what can be done and is available under IPv6. > And what about configuring it? It is *not* plug and play, zeroconf > magic... > Exactly. That's the problem. If you know you can't or aren't very likely to be able to relay DHCP options to customer's end-nodes, you don't bother sending them. The myriad of DHCP(v4 and v6) options that exist that may be useful to an SP are currently of no or very little use because they can't be conveyed directly to customer's end-nodes across the CPE boundary. If an SP can convey DHCPv6 options "past the CPE" to the end-nodes, then IPv6 operation in the customers home can much more user friendly than IPv4's has been. And it needs to be. We've been able to get away with asking customers to type in IPv4 addresses, we won't get away with asking them to type in IPv6 addresses, and we shouldn't be asking them to manually type in DNS names when automated methods of providing them already exist. We just need to make them usable. SOHO CPE are the most common routers deployed, so I think any IPv6 router requirements minimums should be primarily guided by their functional requirements. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
