RA & DHCP problem...

[Nick Hilliard]

On 29/12/2013 11:55, Gert Doering wrote:
> Uh.  And you seriously claim getting vendors to implement *that* is
> harder than getting universal "no-RA-but-DHCPv6" implementations into
> the client stacks?

Time to delivery is not an argument that we shouldn't do something.  I
would much prefer to depend on something which took longer to deliver but
was fully standards compliant across all vendors rather than depending on
vendor hacks which might or might not be supported, depending on phase of
moon / the specific FHRP used / etc.

Separately, in terms of vendor support for this sort of thing,
dibbler-dhcpd already supports a nonstandard default route mechanism.  The
ISC people appear enthusiastic to support it in their product (one of the
authors of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option works with the ISC). And if
you look at previous authorships for some of the previous IDs, you'll see
other vendor names like Huawei and Cisco.  I haven't talked to the
microsoft people.

Nick