Re: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-08

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 4, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>
 wrote:
> I look at it differently. you are adding more complexity on functions that are not in the data path. in my book that isn't fate sharing.

How is this not on the data path?

> we did try with the use of the RAAN option.

Right, but this wasn't useful because it added no functionality—the only purpose it served was to avoid having the relay agent look in the client part of the DHCP packet.   I never understood why you guys wanted this.   If you think the work is important, I am certainly not opposed to reviving it, though—it was a perfectly good draft.

> this is like saying that configuring OSPF on a router is a unsolved problem, just because it isn't done with DHCP. ;-)

No, if OSPF is how these routers are being configured, that's not what I think of as static configuration.   Is that in fact the case?   It's my understanding that there is no clean dynamic configuration mechanism that ties back to the address allocation system (that is, to DHCP). 

It seems to me that what we are talking about here is exactly analogous to what's done today in IPv4 with DHCP snooping and DHCP leasequery, both of which seem to be good solutions that are widely deployed and work well for network providers.   If there's a better way, I'm all ears, but when I asked in the routing area, I got some pretty vague answers that sounded a lot like "it's configured statically."