+1. It's highly unlikely that an SP wants to field DHCPv6 transactions from all the devices in a subscriber network. We have adequate mechanisms in place to get delegated prefixes and other config information to the DHCPv6 server in the subscriber network without the DHCPv6 relay function.
I recommend "routers SHOULD support relay agent functionality of DHCPv6 [RFC3315]." As Ray Hunter pointed out, the market will drive implementation where needed: "I won't buy a router without a DHCPv6 relay function." - Ralph On May 27, 2011, at 9:08 AM 5/27/11, STARK, BARBARA H (ATTSI) wrote: > I'm unaware of any member of the mass market community (which accounts > for a whole lot of "nodes" and "routers") who are asking for or wanting > or expecting DNCP Relay. That's SOHO, Consumer, or the ISPs that serve > them. Are there specialized niches inside these communities that might > like DHCP Relay? That could well be. But to suggest that the mass incur > the expense of including DHCP Relay for the benefit of an unknown few is > unrealistic. > > Note that the CableLabs eRouter spec (Feb 2011) says > "The eRouter is not expected to implement: > ... > * Any relay agent functions." > > The Broadband Forum TR-124 Issue 2 makes no mention of DHCPv6 Relay, > whatsoever. > > Assuming that these documents are a good indication of the functionality > that major connectivity ISPs are expecting in IPv6-capable consumer (and > mass market SOHO to a large extent) routers, I would say that it is > almost a given that if you do make DHCP Relay a "MUST", this would be > one "MUST" that will be blithely ignored by many. Including "MUST" > recommendations that are going to be ignored severely weakens a > document. I would recommend against it. > > I would also recommend against a "SHOULD", given the language (or lack > of language) in the above mentioned documents. IMO, "MAY" is fine. > > Also, note that we have only just agreed to elevate support for DHCPv6 > client in hosts from "MAY" to "SHOULD". If we can't expect hosts to > support DHCPv6 as a "MUST" (and I quite agree with the "SHOULD" level > there), then suggesting DHCPv6 Relay in routers be a "MUST" makes no > sense to me. > Barbara > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
