Hi Ole, > in general I think the use case presented is already supported by DHCPv6 > address assignment; the client puts > the addresses it desire as hints in the IA_NA option in DHCPv6 requests. > > I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a > DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed. > ND is required for router discovery, neighbour discovery etc anyway. and a > router on the link must be configured > with the onlink prefix regardless. > > while we can clearly make this work, I don't think it is justified to create > a duplicate mechanism for prefix discovery.
I fully agree. Those are my thought as well. Thank you for writing them down :-) Sander -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
