Hi, here are our reasons why we need DHCPv6 route option.
* Relaying function is needed. We've already deployed lots of IPv6 edge routers that do not have RFC 4191 more specific routes function in them. Upgrading them or configuring each of them for each customer may not be possible or at least really painful. Central control brought by DHCP relaying function is really helpful here. * Performance problem in aggregating routers. Alexandru pointed out the resource limit on user devices. The similar situation occurs on the network side, such as aggregation routers. As a lot of people pointed out at 6man or v6ops session in Taipei, RA consumes a lot of resources on a user device, and also on the aggregating routers. If we can use DHCP for delegating prefixes, routes, and DNS server addresses, then we can completely move to DHCP. * Host based control is needed. When multiple users are on the same link, such as public wifi services, we want to deliver information, such as prefix, route, and DNS, dependent on the service the user subscribes. The user specific route info is needed, because some users just subscribes to walled garden services, and don't need default route. Some others subscribes to both Internet access and walled garden services. * Why BBF std doesn't work. In one type of access service, we allow directly attaching user's PC to the uplink, as well as attaching a router. So, in this case, PCs have to support DHCPv6 route, address, DNS options, not just the routers. Best regards, _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
