[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: simpler prefix delegation

At 10:44 AM 3/20/2004 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > As I've said before in reference to the recursive name server discovery
> > > discussion, I don't believe it benefits the network operations community
> > > to have multiple solutions to these kind of requirements.
> >
> > The vendor community would probably agree.
>Probably, except for those vendors who would rather not want to be
>required to implement DHCPv6 for tasks {Foo, Bar, ....}.

The network architect/engineer/admin (customer) community should be
considered here, as well.  Are there any customers that have said "DHCPv6 PD
is too complex, we want something simpler"?  I haven't heard from any.

>The question is really whether DHCPv6 is a feasible requirement in
>*every* scenario where you'd desire prefix delegation, [DNS
>discovery], and [whatnot].  If there is consensus that the answer is
>"yes", we can focus the energies elsewhere.  But I do not think there
>is such concensus (even a rough one; even if it might help).

I think the question is really "Do the network architects/engineers/admins
(customers) want something simpler"?  We don't need to make that decision
for them.

>Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

- Ralph

- Ralph

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6