Re: [dhcwg] Re: purpose of m/o bit

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>]

>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:43:07 +0200, 
>>>>> Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com> said:

> These implementations are: KAME DHCP6, the unnamed Linux fork of the  
> KAME implementation at http://dhcpv6.sourceforge.net/ and the Cisco  
> IOS implemenation.

> Conclusion: the Cisco implementation is incomplete (no address  
> assignment) and the other two are too immature to be of much use.

> I'm impressed with the prefix delegation functionality, but as  
> before, the prospect of running such a complex protocol just to  
> optain a domain search list and some DNS resolvers makes me very  
> uncomfortable.

A quick check (which may not be relevant to this thread): what exactly
do you mean by such a complex protocol?  Whole RFC3315 (mainly for
address allocation), the RFC3736 subset, or both?  If your goal is to
obtain a domain search list and recursive name (DNS) servers, you only
need the RFC3736 subset, and at least I'd not use the strong phrase
"such a complex protocol" for RFC3736.

Implementation maturity is a separate issue.  I admit KAME's DHCPv6
implementation is not so matured yet, particularly regarding its
address allocation functionality.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------