[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC 5006 status
- To: gert@space.net
- Subject: Re: RFC 5006 status
- From: sthaug@nethelp.no
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:15:39 +0100 (CET)
- Cc: swmike@swm.pp.se, alain_durand@cable.comcast.com, fred@cisco.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, rdroms@cisco.com, 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, dthaler@windows.microsoft.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, jjeong@cs.umn.edu, luc.beloeil@orange-ftgroup.com, smadanapalli@gmail.com, soohong.park@samsung.com
- In-reply-to: <20100318081445.GC69383@Space.Net>
- References: <C7C67F1D.37A5F%alain_durand@cable.comcast.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1003180441110.9819@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20100318081445.GC69383@Space.Net>
> > 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.
Agreed. Note that this includes having DHCPv6 delivering the default
gateway.
> > In a home scenario, I'd like to leave out the complexity of DHCPv6 if
> > possible, so there I favour RFC5006.
>
> Seconded, for both.
Agreed here too.
Steinar Haug
Senior network architect, Ventelo Networks (AS 2116)