Re: [dhcwg] applicability of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ctep-opt-01

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Ralph Droms wrote:
> My apologies for thoroughly confusing the conversation...

No problem :)

> So, let's leave draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-02 out of this discussion for
> the moment.  Back to the scenario you asked about...I can imagine (if you'll
> give me a moment of suspension-of-disbelief) that an ISP might want to
> provide IPv6/linklocal service between the service provider's edge router
> and the customer routers, without going to full IPv6 connectivity in its
> core.  In that scenario, the customer router could use DHCPv6 to obtain a
> prefix and a tunnel endpoint from a server in the service provider's edge
> router, while needing the tunnel for full external IPv6 connectivity.
> 
> But that does seem like a far-fetched scenario...

Yes, it's very far-fetched, because in this specific scenario:

 1) the access network is usually the most difficult part to get 
native v6, and

 2) it's much simpler for all the concerned parties for the ISP to use 
internal tunneling to bridge the gaps in its core network.  Whether 
these tunnels are manually configured, set up automatically using 6PE 
("BGP-tunneling") between the border boxes, etc.  makes little 
difference.  It's very simple to provide v6 support across v4 core if 
your edge device supports v6 already.

So, as stated -- I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out the real 
applicability of this option, and I don't think we should go forward 
with it.  The danger is that it's more confusing than it's worth...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg