Hi Iljitsch,
Please see inline.
Regards,
Behcet
----- Original Message ----
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>
Cc: xiayangsong at huawei.com; sarikaya at ieee.org; dhcwg at ietf.org
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.