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
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg