Re: [dhcwg] draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-02.txt

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 07/08/2014 18:24, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> At Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:07:33 +0200,
> Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> That aside, I wonder why programmers have set that 64 in the kernel data
>> absent a prefix length field in DHCP/RA, if not because of the fact that
>> specifications are lacking.  Were it for DHCPv6 to have a prefix length
>> field for assigned address A, then programmer would be clearer of what
>> to put on that field, I think.
>
> I guess you're basically re-raising a long standing discussion of
> whether to provide an on-link prefix via DHCPv6.
>
> My understanding is that we have never reached a consensus on this at
> IETF (consider, for example, how
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00
> was discussed and we still don't have any published outcome), so a
> simple rehash of it won't bring us anywhere.  At the very least it's
> safer to discuss it outside the scope of rfc3315bis (because otherwise
> we'll never be able to publish the bis).

Yesm this is outside the rfc3315-bis discussion.

The only minor nit is that it should define "prefix length" and use it, 
not use "prefix-length".

Alex

>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
>