[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DHCP vs. RA... again.



Tony - in my opinion, "both are required" is not necessarily a bizarre state. Each performs a specific task. Unless the Chicago network deployed DHCPv6 and found it problematic, I have to say that the Chicago network was in any way instructive to the specific debate about IPv6. Lessons learned from misconfigured DHCPv4/DNS services have no bearing on this discussion.

- Ralph

On Aug 3, 2007, at Aug 3, 2007,5:01 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

Ralph Droms wrote:
...
We can certainly argue about whether RAs are fundamentally more
problematic than DHCP and whether what we need to do is fix ND or
extend DHCP; what I am reporting is what these operators have told me
based on hands-on experience with deployed networks.

Other deployed networks have hands-on experience showing RA is cheaper for them to operate, and the Chicago network was a showcase for the operational realities that people experience every day. I am arguing there are cases for both deployment models, so we should not be wasting energy debating between them, we just need to fix them both so we don't hang in this bizarre state
where both are required because neither are sufficient as-is.

If the IESG is going to insist that there has to be a one-size-fits- all
answer, they all need to be shot during this nomcom round.

Tony