Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> At the moment there is magic (read proprietary code) that ties, say,
> the DHCP server that delegates a prefix and the routers that install a
> route for the delegated prefix via the delegated node. With this draft,
> the delegated node can advertise the prefix to the routers in a
> standard/interoperable fashion.
Yes, the DHCP relay has to snoop the replies.
I've complained about this at DHCwg some years ago in the past, and been told
that vendors X,Y,Z already have snooping code, and it would take so long to
deploy new things, so what would be the point.
I disagree: had we done this ages ago, today, we would have working code.
> Bottom line is that it is getting more urgent to complete the work and
> I intend to ask for adoption at IETF 117.
> To progress on this, reviews would be much appreciated between now and
> the next IETF.
I agree that we need a specification. But, I think don't think either of the
documents you cited contain that what we need.
Or maybe, I have mis-understood.
(Waiting for Ole to say "OSPF"... and there are some arguments for doing it
this way, and it would be nice to figure out what's in the way here)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
