Hi Bert, On Mon, 23 May 2011 18:07:15 -0500 "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote: > > > " 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one. > > If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has > > successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution > > unless > > there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same > > protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without > > of course using this argument to reject improvements." > > > > > > It's shame IPv6 fails on that count. I'm genuinely asking what the > > improvements are to justify why two mechanisms that are almost > > functionally equivalent. > > Mark, as I suggested previously, DHCP is useful in cases where you need the > IP addresses of hosts in a network to be predictable. Isn't the best way to achieve predictable addresses to use static ones? Or are you talking about an assured and automated permanent binding between a link layer address and an IPv6 address? If it's the latter then that is the only functionality gap I can think of between SLAAC and DHCPv6, although obviously SLAAC addresses are usually derived from link layer addresses. > I have no idea why cable systems want DHCP, but I'm saying that IN > GENERAL, if hosts needs to know a priori what the address of other > hosts is, SLAAC falls flat on its face. > > For example, a peer-to-peer network, where you don't want to rely on a DNS. > > Bert > Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
