DHCPv6 is useful when MSO's want to control which CPE's get addresses and which 
do not.  It provides a simple way to do access control on a network.  Could a 
hacked-up rogue system still manage to get on?  Probably - but at least it bars
casual users from getting on a network that they're not supposed to.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:42 PM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: prefix length determination for DHCPv6

On Aug 13, 2007, at 09:10, David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 05:51:09PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達
> 哉 wrote:
>>
>> In any event, I hear that some DHCPv6 guys are planning to make a new 
>> draft that covers this topic.  So I think it's better to hold off for 
>> now and wait for the document, rather than continue this thread with 
>> keeping possible misunderstanding or confusing about the base 
>> protocol principles.
>
> I agree with everything Jinmei said, but this in particular.  Any 
> conclusions from these threads have a tendency to get forgotten - it's 
> better that we argue the position of a draft that an editor can follow 
> consensus.

I agree with M. Jinmei as far as the quoted excerpt above goes.

As much as I dislike DHCPv6 on general principle, I don't expect that IETF will 
abandon it in favor of a system that more coherently addresses the various 
separate concerns that DHCPv6 attempts to meet.  I hope the DHC WG will specify 
requirements for routers sending advertisements with the M bit set that prevent 
any ambiguity from arising at the node during link configuration.

p.s. I really wish IETF had deprecated DHCPv6 when it had the chance.  Every 
last thing DHCPv6 does belongs in one of two other, separate domains, i.e. 
either in the sub-IP layer, e.g. EAP, or at the sub-application layer, e.g. 
DNS-SD.  Instead, IETF chose a short- sighted and half-baked solution to a 
problem that really didn't need a rush job to solve, and the engineering 
community today is poorer for it.


--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to