[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC 5006 status
You miss my point. I have no problem with using RAs for
configuration. I don't see this as infighting - unless you consider
the expression of a different opinion to be "infighting". I don't
happen to share your opinion that "[t]he IETF has solidly messed up
this part of IPv6 by delaying things for 10 years or so," which is
truly not a helpful opinion. I'm just trying to make sure everyone
has the facts straight.
On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:30 PM 3/18/10, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:25:20PM -0700, Ralph Droms wrote:
There is one way in which RAs involve less overhead - they can use
multicast to carry all the options in one message rather than use
individual message exchanges for each host.
Another nice benefit of RAs is that unsolicited RAs can be used to
add new prefix information (add prefix, deprecate prefix), which
active right away - while DHCP information will only be refreshed
uh, client-initiated refresh.
Please accept that RA is there to stay, and that this infighting
the two groups ("who needs RA when you can have DHCP!!!") is not going
to help. The IETF has solidly messed up this part of IPv6 by delaying
things for 10 years or so...
"real world speaking",
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279