[radext] #6: Review

["radext issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org>]

#6: Review
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Reporter:  peterd@â                 |       Owner:  woj@â        
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new          
 Priority:  minor                    |   Milestone:  milestone1   
Component:  ipv6-access              |     Version:  1.0          
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |    Keywords:               
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Date first submitted: March 1, 2010
 Reference: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2010/msg00227.html

 3.1.


 I'm confused on IPv6-Framed-Address and Framed-IPv6-Prefix from RFC 3162.
 It looks as if both attributes accomplish the same goal. Is there a
 difference between IPv6-Framed-Address and Framed-IPv6-Prefix of /128?
 [Bernard Aboba]

 > DHCPv6 is capable of assignment of both single addresses and prefixes.

 Delegation is addressed in RFC 4818.

 > If the /128 prefix approach is used should I expect that an IP would be
 assigned to the end user?

 You should not expect a DHCPv6 address to be assigned.  On some NASes I
 wouldn't expect *any* address to be assigned.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/6>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>


--
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/>