RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"

["Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com>]

Ralph,

The problem I have with this approach is that giving more though to it,
I thing that

IPv6-DNS attribute could be used in the RFC5006 context. So it is not
DHCP use only.

IPv6-address could be used in a SLAC context for validation of the
advertised address by the gateway.

So it turns that none of the attributes are DHCP specific.

Regards

Benoit


-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 AM
To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernard Aboba; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)
Subject: Re: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP
Networks"

I support accepting "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a RADEXT WG
work item.  There is a need for these attributes to support certain
IPv6 deployment models.

I support handling "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a separate
work item.  I am concerned that bundling the attributes into a revision
of RFC 3162 would incur too much delay.

- Ralph

On Oct 28, 2008, at Oct 28, 2008,2:00 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> At IETF 72, the RADEXT WG was polled on the following questions:
>
> 1) whether to accept "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-
> 00.txt
> )
> as a RADEXT WG work item;
>
> 2) whether to handle this as a standalone work item or bundle it into 
> a revision of RFC 3162 (RFC 3162bis).
>
> This is a RADEXT WG consensus call, in order to confirm the "sense of 
> the room" at IETF 72 with respect to these two items.
>
> The RADEXT WG Consensus call will last until November 12, 2008.    
> Please send your
> opinions on these two questions to the RADEXT WG mailing list 
> (radiusext@ops.ietf.org ).
>
>
>


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>