RE: [dhcwg] Q for draft-krishnan-dhc-ndc-option-00

one approach is not to define *Prefix Information* in your document and goes
to others ND optional information. Although it seems admin issue, I don't
think we need to have a redundant method for getting *Prefix Information*...
RFC3633 lives up to *IPv6 Prefix Configuration*.

Daniel Park

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:23 PM
> To: Daniel Park
> Cc: 'DHC WG'
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Q for draft-krishnan-dhc-ndc-option-00
> 
> Hi Daniel,
>    I was also thinking a lot about this, and I could not find 
> a satisfactory answer.  This problem has always existed and 
> needs to be fixed by administrative solutions. I think this 
> is related to site policy and not for IETF to specify what to 
> do. I was thinking about writing a draft that just specifies 
> this issue (clash between info gleamed from stateless RA 
> based methods and DHCP based methods) and advises admins to 
> come up with a policy that specifies the precedence on client 
> machines.
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
> 
> Daniel Park wrote:
> > Just curious what happen if IPv6 Prefix Option and ND 
> Prefix Information
> > Option are in use at the same time ?
> > 
> > 
> >> Neighbor Discovery Information over DHCP        S. 
> Krishnan      15  
> >> minutes
> >>    <draft-krishnan-dhc-ndc-option-00>
> >>    Initial discussion for consideration as WG work item
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Daniel Park [at] SAMSUNG Electronics
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

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