Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Main comment:

I would like to see some discussion (not standardisation) of the
fact that the proposed new option (not to mention RIO) will need
a central site-wide configuration mechanism. Otherwise the document
will give the false impression that it solves the whole problem.
As we know from the discussion of the DHCP solution, it doesn't.

Minor comments:

> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
>    protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with
>    various parameters [RFC4861], [RFC4862].

I think RFC 4191 should also be listed here. In fact I would extend the
sentence slightly:

   IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
   protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with
   various parameters related to addressing and routing [RFC4861],
   [RFC4862], [RFC4191].

And the next sentence:

>    ...DNS Recursive Server
>    Addresses and Domain Name Search Lists are example parameters that
>    can be configured using router advertisements [RFC6106].

Please s/example/additional/. As far as I know, RFC 6106 is the only
extension to RA that is not related to addressing and routing, and
many people objected even to that small extension.

> 5.  Next Hop Address option
...
>    Length: The length of the option (including the type and length
>    fields) in units of 8 octets.  For example, the length for an IPv6
>    address is 3.

Why "for example"?? This is an IPv6 spec. The length is 3, period.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter