Subject: Re: [dhcwg] CGAs and DHCP

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:15:20 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Iljitsch,
  Please see inline.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:45:56 AM
Subject: Re: CGAs and DHCP

I found this message that I missed way back when... Just in case this  
is still relevant:

On 18 mrt 2008, at 17:49, Templin, Fred L wrote:

> I would now like to
> specify a means for delegating a fully-qualified *prefix*
> (i.e., a /128) that includes a CGA using RFC3633 DHCP prefix
> delegation.

In my opinion, this is not a suitable use of the prefix delegation  
mechanism. Delegating prefixes incurs significant overhead in routers,  
because they have to set up routing for these prefixes. So doing that  
on a per-host basis is the wrong approach.

At a slightly higher level:

It looks like many people want to do many things with DHCPv6 that  
don't really work or are very inconvenient. Perhaps it's a better idea  
to collect these intended uses in a requirements document and then see  
what reasonable changes can be made to DHCPv6 to accommodate these uses.

[behcet] Yes, allowing user input in DHCP address assignment is the kind of change I want to see. This has several applications including CGA.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg