[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.

- Ralph

On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:30 PM 3/18/10, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

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 becomes active right away - while DHCP information will only be refreshed upon,
uh, client-initiated refresh.

Please accept that RA is there to stay, and that this infighting between
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",

Gert Doering
       -- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  150584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279