I see that point as one reasoning to vote for cheaper IPv6 DNS discovery mechanism than DHCPv6(-lite) with RTT cost and I wished to share the reasoning with the group.
Perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't use a cheaper mechanism in a specific environment like this. That certainly wasn't what I meant when I said we should pick one implementation and standardize on that.
All some of us are saying is that the fallback mechanism should be DHCPv6-lite, and that should always be available. If you want to provide RA, and the clients on your network support it, I think that's fine, and that cuts your round-trips down to one. But the minimal correct implementation should be minimal, and there are advantages, in the general case, to having DHCPv6-lite be the minimal correct implementation.
I may be mistaken about this impression, though - some folks seem to be saying that we shouldn't even *allow* RA. That is certainly not my position. That *was* my position, before Tim pointed out that there's a bit for this in the RA, so I can understand why there might be some confusion. :'}
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
