Christopher Morrow wrote:
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
I am not responding to the poll:
http://www.doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=ziu439pxxpcx33da
because I think the question is far too simple. It doesn't split up
the various networks according to their size or according to whether
they are on PI or PA addresses. I would answer differently
As someone running a dual-stack v6 enterprise (smallish), I think I
agree with everything written in the last few posts.
Brian says that enterprises will want DHCPv6, for the reasons Dale says
(SLAAC being 'distasteful' and the complexity of privacy addresses), but
also DHCP is the model that
On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Tony Li wrote:
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.
Tony
When we enabled IPv6 on our whole campus network the main issue was
that
On 26 aug 2008, at 17:30, Templin, Fred L wrote:
clients can contact relays via link-local
multicast.
That is exactly the problem. On 802.11 networks multicasts are sent at
a very low speed for compatibility and because there are no ACKs for
multicasts, so they use up a lot of
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:46 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Routing Research Group
Subject: Re: [RRG] Consensus check: renumbering - missing dimension
On 26 aug 2008, at 17:30, Templin, Fred L wrote:
clients
