Le 19/10/2012 10:08, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in DHCPv6-PD
into ND? If code needs to be changed, why can't that code change be
to implement existing standard instead of implementing a new
standard?
Well, as you say below it depends on the software availability on
various platforms and contexts. To such a generic question I could only
say that in some setting ND is preferred over DHCP but still prefix
delegation is needed.
Isn't ND handled by the kernel in a lot of OSes? Does prefix
delegation really belong there?
Right, parts of ND are handled in kernel in most OSes. But one key part
that would need to be modified is RA and that is userspace. In linux
that means mainly radvd, and curiously enough that lacks RS which is
mostly kernel.
So, instead of preferring DHCP one may bring RS out of kernel into radvd
(a so called 'rsadvd'). At that point it's relatively easier to do
Prefix Delegation with ND than with DHCP, implementation-wise, not least
because code is smaller.
Where does PD belong - to DHCP or ND is a long discussion and I'll be
happy to take part if it happens.
ND to assign _full_ addresses (instead of just beaconing a prefix) is
something to which there was opposition but which also got RFC'ed. If
that happened then why not prefixes as well.
If the discussion turns about which use case, then also I can provide
description about the use case - it's mostly in vehicular environments.
Listening.
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
