[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP
> > RA-only and DHCP-only houses there will surely be. They may be
> > a majority; I just don't know. Vendors and implementors will
> > no doubt be happy to accommodate both of these, as they can offer
> > a complete solution. There will also be houses where neither of
> > these quite meets the requirements (technical, layers 8 and above,
> > or whatever). These houses will need to profile their RA and DHCP
> > services so that they "play nice" with each other. They will look
> > to vendors and implementors who will have taken care to allow
> > different slices of either service to be disabled so that it can be
> > offered only by the other service.
> > One size just won't fit all.
> > Stop me if I haven't noticed that this is all just a "violent
> > agreement".
> Well, I fully agree with you. "Networks differ, so do requirements".
> I have some issues with some folks from the DHCP camp refusing to understand
> that there are operators that just follow a different operational model.
i agree that vendors would implement whatever they would need to, but
iirc the group is here to give guidance for operations.
the primary issue with DHCP-based address assignment is the requirement
for DHCP server to keep state. due to this, major DHCP server
implementation suffers from reading in lease database when it reboots
(stops for 5 minutes). DHCP server is a single point of failure.
with RA-based address autoconfiguration and DHCPv6-lite based stateless
DNS server address passing, there's no need for keeping state in the
server side, hence there's no single point of failure.