On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:52:49 -0400 James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > > On 20-aug-2007, at 15:02, James Carlson wrote: > > > To me, that sounds like high cost with essentially no benefit. What > > > am I missing? <snip> > This means that the DHCP server is perfect in its operation and > omniscient about all hosts that may be attached to the network, even > the statically-configured ones. > > I've yet to meet one that is this good. > Agree, and then you also get people like me who occasionally, in a desperate situation, do a dirty, dirty thing like steal one of the DHCP server's dynamic addresses for a static assignment, and rely on DAD by both the DHCP and other hosts to avoid conflicts, while I deal with the desperate situation. I don't like doing that sort of thing, but I like that both the DHCP server and hosts are robust enough to handle it gracefully when I do. A few extra packets seems to me to be a relatively small price to pay for robustness and resilience. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
