Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Using Lorenzo's proposed wording:

"The solution provided in this document is intended for use in networks where each RR is on its own layer 2 domain."

Any better?

- Jouni


On Dec 14, 2011, at 5:43 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:51, Hemant Singh (shemant) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The semantics definitely include DHCPv6 and the pd-exclude option but it
> may be mistaken that the new option is good for use both in the unicast
> RA and the multicast RA network.  Thus it's best to preserve the keyword
> of "unicast RA".  One document I can find on the unicast RA is rfc6085.
> 
> Hemant, I think you're using the wrong terminology. As Ole says, where you say "multicast RA" you should say "a deployment where multiple CEs are on a shared layer 2 domain" (e.g., the N:1 model) and where you say "unicast RA" you should instead say "with a deployment where each CEs is on its own layer 2 domain".