On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > |The reasoning is that IPv6 was designed that way, so why not > |use the feature if it proves to be useful, at least for small/medium > |sites. > > > Do folks really feel that stateless autoconfig is a significant step forward > vs. DHCP? Current dual-stack site admins would be especially welcome to > opine. >
stateless-autoconfig is entirely not sufficient for site admins to use in a 'renumbering' event. There are many items passed out in DHCP responses which are used by the end systems and not included in stateless-autoconfig. Existing practices account for these items via DHCP in a mostly centralized manner, without these items site-admins will be left with no option but to manually touch each device... Take a moderately large enterprise of 50k systems in a global setting, how long will it take to touch each of the 50k devices and change even the basics: dns-server, wins-servers, domainname (assume you can not 'trust' the system owner/user to get this right, and assume you have limited helpdesk-staff). -chris > Tony > > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg > -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
