On 2008-08-26 09:28, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> |The reasoning is that IPv6 was designed that way, so why not >> |use the feature if it proves to be useful, at least for small/medium >> |sites. >> >> >> Do folks really feel that stateless autoconfig is a significant step forward >> vs. DHCP? Current dual-stack site admins would be especially welcome to >> opine. >> > > stateless-autoconfig is entirely not sufficient for site admins to use > in a 'renumbering' event. There are many items passed out in DHCP > responses which are used by the end systems and not included in > stateless-autoconfig. Existing practices account for these items via > DHCP in a mostly centralized manner, without these items site-admins > will be left with no option but to manually touch each device... > > Take a moderately large enterprise of 50k systems in a global setting, > how long will it take to touch each of the 50k devices and change even > the basics: dns-server, wins-servers, domainname (assume you can not > 'trust' the system owner/user to get this right, and assume you have > limited helpdesk-staff).
My memory is that back when stateless auto-config was conceived, the main target was the "dentist's office" scenario, i.e. basic Appletalk-like zeroconf sites. Unfortunately we still have one hole in this area: no way to advertise a DNS server address in RA messages. See RFC 4339. I'm quite sure that larger sites with any kind of IT management will need DHCPv6. But I don't see why that interacts with the multi-prefix issue. Brian -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg