>-----Original Message----- >From: Ole Trøan [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:39 PM >To: Sheng Jiang >Cc: <[email protected]> WG; IPv6 List >Subject: Re: Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6" > >Sheng, > >>> 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. >>> section 3.2 RFC1958. >> >> Hi, Ole, >> >> Assuming all networks are using SLAAC is not right. >> >> In WiMAX NWG IPv6 spec, Revision 6, see the attachment. >> >> Stateful (DHCPv6) address configuration is supported. >> Check Sections 5.11.11.4 and 5.11.12.2. >> >> Also, BBF document TR-177 supports stateful address configuration using >DHCPv6, check Section 4.2. >> >> I also know a few ISP desire to use DHCPv6 in their networks. > >I make no assumption that all networks are using SLAAC for address >assignment. > >there is no conflict between using ND for prefix assignment and DHCPv6 for >address assignment.
So, how can you get host generated addresses, like EUI64 address, CGA, or Privacy address? Particular for CGA, host has to get prefix first, then use prefix as part of input to generate host identifier. Or you are saying in DHCPv6-managed network, you still use ND to assign prefix. I don't think that deployment is good idea. Cheers, Sheng >cheers, >Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
