[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC 5006 status
- To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
- Subject: Re: RFC 5006 status
- From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:01:28 +0100
- Cc: "Durand, Alain" <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, Lindqvist Kurt Erik <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, jjeong@cs.umn.edu, luc.beloeil@orange-ftgroup.com, smadanapalli@gmail.com, Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
- In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1003180441110.9819@uplift.swm.pp.se>
- References: <C7C67F1D.37A5F%alain_durand@cable.comcast.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1003180441110.9819@uplift.swm.pp.se>
On 18 mrt 2010, at 04:44, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Durand, Alain wrote:
>
>> It might be that the only acceptable answer is we need to defined BOTH mechanisms for every value to discover.
>
> I favour this approach. With my ISP hat on, I want everything that has to do with addresses to be handled by DHCPv6 (this is a MUST to have tracability), the rest can be handled by SLAAC or DHCPv6. I'd imagine this is totally the opposite of the original intentions of SLAAC.
>
> In a home scenario, I'd like to leave out the complexity of DHCPv6 if possible, so there I favour RFC5006.
Count me in, although DHCPv6 would be used by the more demanding users I can see a huge group of end-users who are perfectly ok with SLAAC on their home network.
MarcoH