On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:17 AM, mif issue tracker <trac+...@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote: > 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.
The MIF working group has in its charter an action item to do a DHCPv6 route option. You've admitted that there are use cases that are motivated by the multiple interface use case. The existence of use cases without that motivation therefore doesn't seem to be a valid argument for your assertion that this should be done in a different working group. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
