<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Enno Rey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:erey@ernw.de" target="_blank">erey@ernw.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">> Not yet. There's work underway to fix that omission:<br>
<br>
</div>not sure if everybody here agrees with the term "omission". not sure if the "fix" from <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option</a> will ever see the light of the world (read: be ratified) either.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep. I for one do not agree that it's an omission. I think that the semantics of DHCPv6 are less well-suited for routing information than RAs, because they are less dynamic (no deprecation), don't have fate-sharing, and support only one source of truth. It seems to me that the only advantage of using DHCPv6 is operational consistency with IPv4, and IMO that's not a good enough reason to give up those advantages.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Given this is an ops mailing list, this discussion might be ill-suited here. Just want to avoid that Andreas gets some hope that turns out to be unrealistic...<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1. Given that there is disagreement in the IETF, you might have to wait a long time before the DHCPv6 route option is standardized, and it might not happen at all.</div></div></div>