#16: DHCPv6 route option does not belong in MIF working group
The DHCPv6 route option does not belong in the MIF working group.
Rationale:
1. Virtually all the use cases provided (as of draft-05, at least #1, #2,
#3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10) are not specific to hosts with multiple
interfaces, and apply equally well to hosts with one interface.
2. The DHCPv6 route option duplicates, in a different way, functionality
which is part of the core protocol specification. Specifically, it
duplicates functionality of RFC 4862 (stateless address autoconfiguration,
routing, on-link prefixes).
Duplicating core IPv6 protocol functionality in a different working group
is a bad idea. Work on this option should be moved to 6man, which is
authoritative for configuration of routing on IPv6 nodes.
--
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: lorenzo@… | Owner: draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
Type: defect | option@…
Priority: blocker | Status: new
Component: dhcpv6 | Milestone:
-route-option | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/16>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
