On May 13, 2011 6:39 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Per a previous thread, there are indications that the WG may now be > willing to recommend that DHCPv6 be a SHOULD for all hosts. This is > based on the following rationale: > > Thomas Narten <[email protected]> writes: > > > I personally would support having DHCP be a SHOULD rather than a > > MAY. The justification in my mind is that if you want the network > > operator to have the choice of whether they want to use Stateless > > addrconf OR DHCP, they only have that choice of devices widely > > implement both. > > This was supported by some others, particularly now that it is clear > there are more implementations of DHCPv6, e.g.: > > Bob Hinden <[email protected]> writes: > > > While my personal view is that DHCPv6 won't be used for host > > configuration in cable/DSL deployments (except for provisioning the > > prefix to the home router), it appears that DHCPv6 is being widely > > implemented in host OS's because it is needed some environments. > > There are enough variations in deployment models that a host > > developer will need to support both. > > > Based on this, I think a SHOULD is OK. > > Let me propose the following change be made to the node requirements > document: > > OLD/Current: > > DHCP can be used to obtain and configure addresses. In general, a > network may provide for the configuration of addresses through Router > Advertisements, DHCP or both. At the present time, the configuration > of addresses via stateless autoconfiguration is more widely > implemented in hosts than address configuration via DHCP. However, > some environments may require the use of DHCP and may not support the > configuration of addresses via RAs. Implementations should be aware > of what operating environment their devices will be deployed. Hosts > MAY implement address configuration via DHCP. > > New: > > <t> DHCPv6 <xref target='RFC3315' /> can be used to obtain and > configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the > configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements, > DHCPv6 or both. Some operators have indicated that they do > not intend to support stateless address autoconfiguration on > their networks and will require all address assignments be > made through DHCPv6. On such networks, devices that support > only stateless address autoconfiguration will be unable to > automatically configure addresses. Consequently all hosts > SHOULD implement address configuration via DHCP.</t> > > > Is this acceptable? > > Please respond yes or no. Given the WG's previous hesitation to having > DHCPv6 be a SHOULD, it is important that we get a clear indication of > whether or not the WG supports this change. >
Yes. I support the new text. Cb > Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
