On 05/11/2012 13:05, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote: > Hi, > > # should I comment to the list, or to the tracker ? Anyway. > > Thank you for filing issues on tracker site. > After browsing through the filed issues, I found that the only blocker > issue of this item is #9. > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/9 > > Other issues just suggest small changes to the draft, or deletion of > specific use cases in the draft. > > The issue #9 argues about the "fate sharing" characteristics of RA. > I admit it is surely an advantage of RA base mechanism. But, as you know > it, RA and DHCP has its own benefits. So, IMHO, the single benefit of RA > does not block the DHCP based mechanism. > I don't know why this issue if the blocker of this draft.
It seems to me to be a weak argument anyway. Fate sharing is valuable in the context of the end to end argument, but that is not in question here. Yes, the DHCP server is a different point of failure from the router, but both of them are single points of failure for the network as a whole. If you are running DHCP at all, it must never fail. I don't think this is a blocking issue, either. Regards Brian Carpenter Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880 _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
