Re: [mif] Use case 42 [Re: Use cases for draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option needed]

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 18, 2011, at 11:20 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I didn't read it as the same, and in any case I fail to see how
> a solution with some special features for CATV or ADSL or UMTS
> can solve the general problem of distributing routing info to
> hosts in an arbitary network, very possibly connected by none of
> those specific technologies.

This is true.   However, since the general problem is already nicely solved by RAs, I don't see how it supports your position.

> I don't know how to say it clearer: the use case is any IPv6
> network, such as an enterprise network, whose operator *chooses*
> to manage it using DHCPv6. It isn't for the IETF to decide for
> these operators, and a technology-specific "vendor" option is
> not going to solve the general purpose requirement.

It most certainly _is_ up to the IETF to decide whether we will standardize some mechanism for doing this. Of course we can't stop them engineering around us, but I think they would have to be motivated by some use case that RA *really doesn't address* before they'd go to that trouble.   So what's that use case?