On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:47:42AM -0700, Templin, Fred L wrote: > contain no PIOs nor router lifetime. It might also be > necessary for RAs to contain other information such as > RIOs (RFC4191) that may not be practically available > from DHCP. > > Unless there is a DHCP equivalent for conveying such > "other" information (is there?), I guess that in some > use cases that would argue for option 3 (use both)? There's a small blurb in Ralph's draft that says something like this, "It does not matter if DHCPv6 is just as bad as DHCPv4, it can not be worse." And operation without RA is also a stated requirement. So I think the answer is that we will be seeing a static routes option in the very near future, and maybe it is not a bad idea to add it to the current draft? If we did have a static routes option, would we want that to cover any default route(s) as well? -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgp_RzLlAl7rQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature