On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 27, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: >> Good point, done, thanks. > > Hm, I didn't mean to eliminate DHCPv6 entirely. It's quite possible that RA > is sufficient, but for completeness I think it would be better to have a > DHCPv6 option just in case it's needed.
I can easily put it back :-) I've gone back and forth on the v6 DHCP case a few times. I think it goes like this: -00: DHCPv4 only -01: DHCPv4, DHCPv6 [ DHCPv6 added by Paul E] -02: DHCPv6, RA, DHCPv4 [ RA added as requested by Lorenzo C] -03: DHCPv4, RA [ DHCPv6 removed after threat^w request from Erik Kline :-) ] -04: DHCPv4, RA -05: DHCPv4, RA, bits of DHCPv6 came back. -06: DHCPv4, RA, bits of DHCPv6 -07: DHCPv4, RA, bits of DHCPv6 -08: DHCPv4, RA. I personally like DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, but there seems to be some religion around this stuff :-) Supporting multiple option for v6 means need to provide guidance on what to do when you get *different* answers in DHCPv6 and IPv6 RA. I had text in -02 covering this, I can easily put it back. The whole DHCPv6 vs RA topic is, um, interesting... there appear to be some quite strong opinions around this :-) I'll spin another version with both DHCPv6 and RA, and guidance on what to do if you get both. This will no-doubt annoy some folk, but I can leave the consensus call to Joel :-) W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
