----- Original Message -----
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 3:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Announcing Prefix Delegation extensions to ND
> draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt
>
>> There is also the question of availability of DHCP software on smaller
>> platforms which have no SIM card. It may be easier to do this with ND
>> in smaller settings.
>
> The obvious conclusion to this argument is that a *lot* of DHCP
> functionality will be duplicated in ND. Is this where we want to go?
>
> I'm coming from the DHCP side of the argument. In my world DHCP is
> needed because it gives you a single place to handle dynamic address
> allocation, *and* it ties in with all sorts of support & backend
> systems.
>
> I am against adding lots of new ND functionality until we have DHCPv6
> that is considerably more feature complete. Some of this is probably
> coming (client MAC address), some of it is still being opposed for
> mostly religious reasons (e.g. running DHCP without RA).
>
Can people stop religiously using the "religious reasons" to complain about
DHCPv6
not having a default gateway option?
The argument against a default gateway option in DHCPv6 is exactly the one
you're using against additional ND options - it's not only a solved problem,
the code to implement it has been widely deployed and widely works.
Some people believe that you need DHCPv6 to support a default
gateway option so that you can selectively give different hosts different
default gateways. That is not true, RAs can be also selectively sent to
different hosts, and the radvd daemon implements it - see the "clients"
interface option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
