Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outsi de US ?)

[Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>]

The dhc WG has received a request to develop, on behalf of network  
operators who have expressed the specific requirement that they do  
not want the operation of their network to depend on RAs, new options  
for DHCPv6 to pass prefix and default router information to a host.   
That information would allow a host to get all of its configuration  
information from DHCPv6, obviating the use of RAs.

Will the IETF elite allow the standardization of these new options to  
support this different mode of configuration or will those network  
operators who would prefer to use only DHCPv6 be forced to continue  
to use RAs?

- Ralph, who is astonished that the IPv6 community hasn't solved
  multihoming, PI vs. PA addressing, core routing table scaling,
  renumbering and ad hoc networking, but does have time to rehash,
  yet again, the problem of Making the Internet Safe from DHCP

On Aug 2, 2007, at Aug 2, 2007,5:57 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

> I did not say that DHCP should be deprecated. There are real-world
> situations like the ones that took down the IETF DHCP service, that  
> are
> clearly operational/implementation/deployment rather than protocol  
> issues.
> Just because some organizations run DHCP does not mean everyone  
> else MUST
> because the IETF elite refuse to allow an operationally different
> alternative to be standardized.
>
> Tony
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Durand, Alain [mailto:Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:26 PM
> > To: Jari Arkko; alh-ietf@tndh.net
> > Cc: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings
> > outsi de US ?)
> >
> > I agree. Cable networks have proven that DHCP can be scaled
> > to tens of million of leases...
> >
> > The fact that something went wrong at IETF is no proof
> > that the model is broken.
> >
> >   - Alain.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:53 PM
> > > To: alh-ietf@tndh.net
> > > Cc: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more
> > > meetings outsi de US ?)
> > >
> > > I may be missing some context (I'm bandwidth challenged right
> > > now and unable to check archives). But its unclear to me
> > > where you jumped to the conclusion that DHCP problems in
> > > Chicago had something to do with a specific protocol and that
> > > this implies we need to deploy an alternate solution in IPv6.
> > > If anything, multiple solutions seem to increase the
> > > likelihood of interop and configuration problems.
> > >
> > > Jari