On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ <trej...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are "frequent" events. Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and when you plug it into moderately unstable things like phone lines (DSL) and cable networks, those little bugs cause reloads -- you'd think they'd have better error handling, but they don't. (I don't buy millions in equipment from Cisco so they don't care about my problems.) While I could use backup links, flip-floping between ISPs with different addresses is not ideal (and that's as true for v6 as v4.)
Why is there a problem with RAs being the first step, possibly including prefix info or possibly just hinting @ DHCPv6?
Because it doesn't fit the needs of *every* network. In fact, it's only "good enough" for very few networks. As such it just adds more useless layers of bloat.
Well, as it stands now the RA isn't useless.
...
Also, it is not true in every case that hosts need a "lot more" than an address. In many cases all my machine needs is an address, default gateway and DNS server (cheat off of v4 | RFC5006 | Stateless DHCPv6).
It's useless. It does NOT provide enough information alone for a host to function. In your own words, you need a DNS server. That is NOT provided by RA thus requires yet another system to get that bit of configuration to the host -- either entered manually, DHCPv6, or from IPv4 network configuration (ie. DHCP!) Forcing this BS on the world is a colossal waste. We've had a system to provide *ALL* the information a host needs or wants in the IPv4 world for years. Why it's not good enough for IPv6 is beyond me.
--Ricky
