Issues with multiple stateful DHCPv6 options
draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Ole Trøan , Bernie Volz | ||
Last updated | 2013-02-19 (Latest revision 2012-03-28) | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
[RFC3315] was not written with the expectation that other stateful DHCPv6 options would be developed. [RFC3633] shoe-horned the new options for Prefix Delegation options for DHCPv6 into DHCPv6. Implementation experience of the CPE model described in [RFC6204] has shown multiple issues with the DHCPv6 protocol in supporting multiple stateful options.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)