Re: simpler prefix delegation

> This started from me looking at draft-bykim-ipv6-hpd-01.txt, what it
> was before that, DHCPv6 + PD, a few proposals at v6ops for integrated
> prefix delegation, etc.. -- I couldn't help thinking, "there must be
> an easier way to delegate an IPv6 prefix in the simplest setups (e.g.,
> when v6 connectivity is obtained through a tunnel) -- DHCPv6 is way
> too heavy-weight".

"way too Heavy Weight" is not well-defined.
Please explain a bit more how you decide this. Pekka ?

When we dicuss about measurement, we should be mathematical.
Otherwise it sounds just a feeling or myth which 
leads us to just a superstition.

In this case, the information carried by the protocol
 - either DHCP format or whatever -  is essentially the same; 
just a prefix information which is about 128bits + prefix length.
Therefore the volume of the bits are also not so different  in either case. 
Also we need have some software (or maybe hardware)
to process prefix delegation but the complexity of either software is
just about the same, because it is very simple job.

When I  started the work of prefix delegation several years ago, 
Steve Deering told me that ICMP and RA are very fundamental 
so we should keep those as simple as possible.

I believe that that philosophy is worth to keep still (or forever).

Lastly, Let us recallvery important fact which is  that 
we should not have many options or protocols  for the same purpose. 

So, if we have DHCPv6 today, Let's use it.

Best regards,

Shin Miyakawa

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------