Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

This is an even better proposal! I see nothing wrong with it. Thanks Bernie!

Simon

Le 2013-11-27 14:24, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> I had suggested (perhaps privately) that at least in my mind, having a single option would be so much better.
>
> The option can return a list of N IPv6 addresses where N can be 0.
>
> If the option is returned with no IPv6 addresses, then it means enabled but with standard multicast.
>
> If the option is returned with one or more addresses, then it means sent to those addresses (whether unicast or multicast - why does the sender care).
>
> If the option is NOT returned, it means that the service is disabled.
>
> Now, one issue against this is that it may be a bit unusual for servers to support an option with 0 or more IPv6 addresses? If that is a problem for a particular server, then one possibility is just configure it with one address - the All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers. (I don't see a reason to prohibit this value from being included; it just isn't required as it can be implied by sending no addresses.)
>
> - Bernie

-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca