Re: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Fully agree.

I was absolutely unable to get DHCP working during more than two hours
yesterday afternoon, which is unacceptable in my opinion.

However I was able to use IPv6, manually configuring my own IPv6 DNS
resolver from my home network.

It will be really nice to make sure that we can progress with more
parameters available in the RA.

And by the way, unfortunately the DHCP issues are very very very very
frequent in many networks, not sure if its a protocol/design issue or just
not so good DHCP implementations, but it is the reality.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
> Responder a: <69attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:17:22 -0500
> Para: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org>
> CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, <69attendees@ietf.org>
> Asunto: Re: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP
> 
> [people were complaining about delays in getting an IPv4 address over
> DHCP, CCing the v6ops list to make a point]
> 
> On 24-jul-2007, at 10:19, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 
>> good reason to use IPv6 entirely, as long as you have IPv6 DNS
>> server:-P
> 
> More specifically, stateless autoconfig seems to work a lot better
> than DHCP in this case: one router advertisement can provide a large
> number of clients with address and configuration information, while
> DHCP requires messages back and forth for each individual client. A
> good reason to make sure that it's possible to run IPv6 with all that
> that entails (= DNS resolver addresses) without the need to run
> DHCPv6 if running DHCPv6 isn't specifically desired.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 69ATTENDEES mailing list
> 69ATTENDEES@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/69attendees