Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine

["tony.whyman" <[e-mail]>]

Fred,We should clarify that while OMNI may include DHCPv6 PD, that is for general use. Civil Aviation is using static MNP assignment and is only interested in MNP confirmation using the LLA convention.TonySent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> Date: 09/11/2020  16:41  (GMT+00:00) To: [e-mail] Subject: Re: DHCPv6-PD is fine Le 09/11/2020 à 17:32, Templin (US), Fred L a écrit :> DHCPv6-PD is fine - especially for mobiles - so, please stop spreading FUD.> In OMNI in particular, we have two modes of prefix registration for mobiles:> 1) Static configuration, 2) DHCPv6-PD - with both methods being driven by> RS/RA. We have used both methods for many years for prefixes lengths> in the /56 to /64 range, and I see no reason to get dragged into arguments> about longer lengths which is a completely different discussion.Fred, maybe people in the aviation can deploy their own ground networks to accomodate planes with OMNI interfaces.  At that point it is easy to say DHCPv6-PD is fine.But in other places, automobiles for example, one must use the existing cellular networks.  DHCPv6-PD is not fine there.  It's not FUD.This discussion has become so complicated that it seems to me impossibly complex to come up with something that satisfies even a minority.OMNI and DHCPv6-PD, Ethernet P2P, Variable SLAAC, 464XLAT, Mobile IPv6 with NEMO extensions, and others - are each a potential solution to some environment.Alex> > Fred> --------------------------------------------------------------------> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list> [e-mail]> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> --------------------------------------------------------------------> --------------------------------------------------------------------IETF IPv6 working group mailing [e-mail] Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6--------------------------------------------------------------------