The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

Owen DeLong owen at
Fri Jun 10 14:51:24 UTC 2011

On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 10 jun 2011, at 16:28, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>> Ok, so now we've identified the problem.
>>> How exactly does adding default gateway information to DHCPv6 solve this problem?
>> Please go back and re-read my original scenario and think about it.
> I don't have to, as you restate pretty much all of it here...
> So we agree on the problem. Now the only thing we have to do is come up with a solution that everybody likes. In a greenfield situation that solution could be "compile DHCPv4 for 128 bits" but guess what, we have "legacy" IPv6 systems that aren't compatible with that, and we want results before those systems are all killed off.

Seems to me that adding a routing information option to DHCPv6 solves the problem
without breaking the legacy hosts.

What's wrong with that idea?


More information about the NANOG mailing list