>>>>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:02:23 +0000,
>>>>> Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> From my perspective DHCPv6 has to be the only solution because multiple
>> solutions equals more complexity. I don't see any benefit to the
>> operator community from multiple solutions to this problem.
> So I agree we should press ahead and get operational experience with DHCPv6
> in real deployments. If there are clear gaps, then we can work on the RA
> (or an alternative) method.
I basically agree with this.
As the bottom line, I don't think it a good idea to have two (or more)
approaches as equally applicable methods for DNS recursing server
discovery. If we have both, we'll need to implement both since we may
have an environment where only one of them is available. So, even if
we allow alternatives, I believe only a single approach must be the
primary and mandatory one.
As the primary approach, I support stateless DHCPv6. I don't yet have
a particular objection to the RA-based approach per se, but
- the standardization status is much more matured for DHCPv6: the base
specification is now an RFC, the DHCPv6 options for the DNS
recursing server discovery are at the final stage of the
standardization, the option types were officially allocated by IANA,
and the stateless guide for DHCPv6 was already sent to the IESG.
- there are several implementations that are interoperable. (e.g., if
you configure your IPv6 network with BSD-based PC routers and BSD PC
client hosts, you can use DHCPv6 for this purpose today. I believe
you can also Linux routers/hosts in this network)
- I don't see significant difference on operational cost between
DHCPv6 and the RA-based method: server/router operators must
configure the DNS recursing server addresses by hand anyway (it may
be done automatically in some environments, but it should be the case
for both). Host users would not care about which approach runs as
long as it can provide correct information automatically (and either
approach can).
- (I admit this is quite a subjective opinion but) I don't see much
advantage in the RA-based method to adopt it as the primary
approach. For example, one obvious advantage of the RA-based method
is that it can multicast the information and can reduce the network
traffic for this. But I don't need the advantage today. At least I
don't think the advantage is so great that it can continue this
almost-endless discussion and delay the real deployment. I don't
stop others pursuing the RA-based approach or DHCPv6-lite for the
additional advantage for future extensions, but I strongly believe
we should stop the discussion (on DHCPv6 vs RA vs others) now, adopt
DHCPv6 as the "primary and mandatory" approach, and start running.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
