v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)]
trejrco at gmail.com
Sat Feb 7 16:43:48 UTC 2009
>as I've said a few times now, reason #775 that autoconf is a broken and
>useful 'gadget' for network operators. There is a system today that does
>lots of client-conf (including the simple default-route +
>dns-server) called DHCP, there MUST be a similarly featured system in the
>'new world order' of ipv6.
>This really is non-negotiable, why are people still holding out hope that
>autoconf is 'enough' when users and operators have so clearly said
There IS a similarly featured system.
Why is it so hard to accept that in MANY cases SLAAC is enough (especially
when RFC5006 is more widely supported, or while IPv4 is still around to
cheat off of (glaring at WinXP)) ... and when it isn't enough, or when you
feel like doing more DHCPv6 is there waiting for you?
Almost no one is arguing that DHCPv6 can't exist, shouldn't exist, etc.
Perhaps with the exception of Apple, that is - and that is still OK!
I certainly see value in DHCPv6, but I see value in SLAAC as well.
I don't want to force anyone to not do DHCPv6, why do others want to force
me to do DHCPv6?
Can't we all just get along?
More information about the NANOG