Re: Adoption Call for <draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option>

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

> There are many kinds of networks and many kinds of hosts, and I
> think that we are doing ourselves a disservice to try to hit them
> all with the same hammer.

A single hammer is exactly with the WG is doing. Copying features from
DHCPv6 to RA is supported, adding features to DHCPv6 that duplicate features
in RA is blocked.

The hammer for basic network configuration that is support in this WG is
RA. 

> I think that's an unfair characterization of the WG.  It does look
> that way by message count, but I think that we have some very loud
> individuals.

As far as I know this WG blocked adding a default router to DHCPv6. As far
as I know, there is still no chance a default router option for DHCPv6 
would pass. It is a feature that has been reqeusted time and time again.
And each time it has been rejected.

> I don't really know how universal-ra has anything to do with DHCP
> vs RA.  universal-ra is about being able to do experiments or other
> minor things in RA space without having to wait three years for
> your router vendor to include

The draft adds the option to both RA and DHCP.

As has been mentioned before in this discussion, there are ways to add
support for unknown RA options to routers.

The DNS community has been using such a mechanism for a long time and works
fine.