[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC 5006 status



Giving a counterpoint opinion, home network users don't care which mix of RS/RA and DHCP is used on their networks, as long as they don't have to deal with it in any way. The combination of upstream DHCPv6/ PD provisioning, with automated config of ND and stateless DHCPv6 is easily deployable - I have an existence proof in my lab - and operates without any manual intervention whatsoever. Just as much plug-and- play as the IPv4/NAT/DHCP function in RGs.

There are likely other network operators who do have to manually manage configs and the network that might prefer RA-only operation, but in my opinion home networks are not such a good example...

- Ralph

On Mar 18, 2010, at 1:01 AM 3/18/10, Marco Hogewoning wrote:


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