On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a prefix, then
moves in that area and gets another prefix. At that point, if the
router obtaining a prefix wants to delegate further to another vehicle
needs to change the delegated prefix.
This dynamic change between the received prefix and the delegated prefix
is not a matter of DHCP. It can be implemented by like scripting which
are independent of DHCP implementation. One has to touch the conf files
be it of DHCP or of ND.
I'm sorry. I don't follow your reasoning.
Could you please write some text with a clear use case where DHCPv6-PD
can't be used for what you want to do, thus justifying why your proposal
is needed? Please keep it at a protocol level, not implementation level.
What is cleaner is to use existing standards where there already is
running code.
Right, there is cleanliness in reuse. Reuse as much as possible.
Then why do you feel the need to create something new when there already
is existing standards that will achieve the same thing?
In addition to FOSS (what is FOSS?) DHCP one also needs to dynamically
change the delegated prefix when the assigned prefix changed.
FOSS = Free and Open Source Software.
WEll yes, I agree that IPv6 should be kept stable and part of that may
be that we try to make sure that a new proposal does not break existing
implementation. This is a matter of further work.
I'd say it's an absolute requirement that any proposal do not break
existing implementations.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
