Hi Med,
> >Dear Tomek, > >Thank you for this clarification. > >Providing the IP address in the option is not flexible enough and especially >it > >may not be recommended to achieve load balancing. Otherwise the DHCPv6 server >should act as a load balancer, which is not currently our preference. > >To illustrate more the usage with the domain name option: The scenario I >mentioned (is similar to what currently done in some VoIP networks for >distributing customers among SBC nodes or P-CSCFs): you provide a generic >FQDN >of the AFTR by the DHCP server together with a suffix in the dns serach list >option. When the B4 receives these two options, it will form a the FQDN to >use >to resolve its AFTR. Then a query is sent to the DNS system (it can be >dedicated to the service), and based on the load considerations, the >requesting > >client is redirected to the appropriate AFTR nodes (i.e., an IP address is >returned). > >With the sole IP address option we can not have such engineering flexibility >for the provisioning of the AFTR. > >Having the two options allow for more flexibility for the engineering. IMHO, >the IETF should not impose engineering choice to SPs. It will be up to each >service provider to decide whether an IP address or a FQDN is more convenient >in his deployment context. I think this point should have been emphasized in the draft before sending it to IESG. That would have made some difference in IESG. Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires