Subject: [mif] Fwd: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:34:41 +0800

just forwarding to MIF mailing list for reference

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: 2011/8/13
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option
To: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Cc: dhc WG <[email-masked]>

  On Aug 12, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote:

The major issue I have for this draft is: why design an IA container if
"client will never use more than one IA_RT" (stated in this draft) and it
has only one sub-option - Next Hop option. For me, it seems more explicit
and simple to directly define Next Hop Option and allow multiple Next Hop
Option if needed.

If it really is the case that there is only going to be one suboption, I
think you are correct.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg