On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> >>> On 12 jun 2011, at 15:45, Leo Bicknell wrote: >>> >>>>> Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many multicasts >>>>> which can seriously degrade wifi performance. >>> >>>> Huh? This is no worse than IPv4 where a host comes up and sends a >>>> subnet-broadcast to get DHCP. >>> >>> The IPv4 host does this once and gets its lease. If there is no DHCPv6 >>> server then DHCPv6 clients would keep broadcasting forever. Not a good >>> thing. >>> >> >> Which is no worse than the behavior of an IPv4 host on a network without a >> DHCP server. > > An ipv4 host will in most cases configure itself with a link-local address. A > possibly surprising number of people consider this broken, when in fact it's > working. the possiblity that autoconfiguration of networks would occur when > no routers or dhcp servers exist has some utility just as it did when windows > started doing this with ipv4 circa 1998. >
Yes, so will an IPv6 host. I'm not understanding your point here. The point of the conversation is that the DHCPv6 packets going out on a network without a DHCPv6 server would be no worse than the DHCPv4 packets on a network without a DHCPv4 server today. Owen
