Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Alexandru,

>>>> I'm not sure I understand how's that materially different/better
>>>> than a node just trying to request a PD if it wants one, and
>>>> coping with the response (whatever it may be), like it does
>>>> today.
>>> 
>>> The usual concern is that a bazillion devices all requesting PDs
>>> every so often adds up to a lot of traffic.   But since the
>>> existing spec doesn't forbid this, we're stuck with it.
>> 
>> then you're understanding of "usual" is different from mine. :-) as
>> far as I know this can only happen in very specific circumstances
>> during transition.
>> 
>> we should be more concerned about this idea of using one protocol to
>> provision another. in this case ND to configure DHCP. is that a good
>> design principle to follow?
> 
> PRobably not.  Stated as such it would be too limiting (ND to help
> running _just_ DHCP).
> 
> Maybe Radius as well.  The RA would just say that some means is
> available to offer a delegated prefix, w/o saying which, without saying whether it is stateful or stateless, secure or insecure, etc.

for what purpose?
would the CE behave any differently if the network advertised that PD was available or not?

cheers,
Ole