RE: [New I-D] Configured Tunnel End Point Option for PPP IPV6CP

Soohong Daniel Park writes:
> I am not sure but if ppp nodes don't have a DHCP function, this option can
> be used for that.

What "function?"  Note that PPP nodes today don't have the extension
you're describing, and thus you're talking about code changes (and
deployment issues) in either case.  It's not the case that making it a
PPP option instead of a DHCP message fixes this problem.

If you have to change the code anyway, then why is it significantly
harder to send a single UDP packet (a DHCPINFORM message; see RFC
2131) and get a single reply, instead of adding a PPP option?

In fact, I'd expect that it's easier to have just the DHCP extension.
That gives the world just *one* feature to implement, rather than two.

Moreover, it's not at all clear to me how this fits in
architecturally.  Is this really a link-layer issue?

-- 
James Carlson, IP Systems Group                <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677