The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

Matthew Palmer mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Fri Jun 10 22:39:09 CDT 2011


On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 07:53:36AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > In a message written on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:34:57AM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> >> Also agree that I want flexibility to use RA or DHCPv6; the
> >> disagreement is that RA needs to be removed or changed from IPv6.
> >> Don't go breaking my IPv6 stack for your own ambitions, please.
> > 
> > I want that flexability as well, but the IETF won't deliver.
> > 
> > The two options delivered so far are:
> > 
> > RA's only.
> 
> Only sort of... This only works if you don't want to auto-configure things like DNS,
> NTP, etc.
> 
> I would like to see both protocols made optionally complete, so, in addition
> to fixing DHCPv6 by adding routing information options, I'd also like to
> see something done where it would be possible to add at least DNS
> servers to RA.

RFC6106... the future is nooooooow...

I like it, inasmuch as I don't need to run a separate DHCPv6 server on a
simple network, but that'd be equally solved by merging radvd into the DHCP
server and just running that.  The client-side configuration is annoying for
RDNSS.

- Matt




More information about the NANOG mailing list