Re: [homenet] Configuration must not be carried by the routing protocol

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:08 AM, Mark Townsley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> That explicit statement went away in RFC 3315, though the terminology section makes it very clear that a Host is not a Router.
> 
> DHCPv6 PD is explicitly for configuring routers, so I think this assertion is wrong.   

This was linked back to the assertion that "the IETF has a configuration protocol, it is DHCP" or some such. I was simply trying to point out what "the IETF" has on record in this regard.

Certainly, we often use protocols beyond their original intent. RFC 5218 calls this "Wild Success", with plenty of examples. 

DHCPv6 PD has been referred to by one of its co-authors as "a Fax replacement", so that the user doesn't have to type in his prefix sent to him in printed form from his ISP. I think that analogy was given to sway anyone away from trying to rely on it for more than a very long-lived, essentially static, value from an ISP. 

> I think Lorenzo's argument is a better one.

Agreed.

- Mark