RE: RFC 5006 status

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

If DHCPv6 and ND do not work together in the deployment, I hear ya,
Tony.  However where is text of "use one at a time" in any RFC to warn
users?  Further, then see my text about multiple default routers in the
network.  The more than one default router case is same as when DHCPv6
and ND run in the same network.  What does one do there?  I am also
replying to Gert here.  The simple problem is that what if a host
queries two DNS servers and gets back two different responses - which
one does the client use?  RFC5006 has further inertia towards becoming a
standard because now DNS64 is coming about and we have one more systems
one will screw up.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Tony Hain
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:56 AM
To: 'IPv6 Operations'
Subject: RE: RFC 5006 status

This document needs to be standards track. There is no 'competition'
between
auto-conf vs. dhcp, they serve different communities and need to stand
alone. The historic error in the IETF process was to require both
stateful
and stateless to have any network operate. Each approach really need to
stand alone and be fully functional without dependency on the other. The
missing link on the auto-conf side is 5006, and it needs to be standards
track asap.

Tony