The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

William Herrin bill at
Fri Jun 10 14:10:13 UTC 2011

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch at> wrote:
> On 9 jun 2011, at 19:37, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled
>>> by RA in IPv6.
>> Thankfully this silliness is in the process of being fixed,
> So where do I point out the stupidity of trying to fix this non-brokenness?

Hi Iljitsch,

There are three schools of thought on that:

1. SLAAC is the optimal way to configure IP addresses under IPv6.
DHCPv6 should only facilitate configuration of other things that SLAAC
doesn't deal with (e.g. DNS resolver)

2. SLAAC was a clever idea that for a variety of reasons (e.g. the
server configuration knowledge leak) isn't panning out. DHCPv6 should
replace SLAAC. It should do the same work as IPv4 DHCP, as expected by
folks used to IPv4.

3. Give it to me both ways. I'll make the choice I decide is optimal
for my network.

With my operations hat on, I'm a fan of option #3. I find the
theorists' intrusion into my prerogative as a system administrator
(option #1) to be disagreeable.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at  bill at
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the NANOG mailing list