[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP
On Sep 13, 2007, at 11:07 , Shane Kerr wrote:
I wasn't around in "the good old days when IPv6 was being designed",
but my understanding is that IPv6 designers wanted to add
"autoconfiguration" to the list of improvements over IPv4.
Right.
(This is a
bit silly, because everything other than "IPv6 has more addresses" has
been added to IPv4 - of course!)
Why is this silly? And _stateless_ autoconfiguration with stable
addresses can't be added to IPv4 because the address space isn't
large enough.
Because of this, they resisted
DHCPv6, and they continue to oppose DHCPv6.
Hm, how exactly did the IPv6 designers in ~ 1995 resist DHCPv6 that
wasn't published until 2003?
I suppose I am "in the DHCP camp", but my take on it is not to oppose
network designs without DHCP, but rather that we should not attempt to
duplicate the functionality of DHCP in other protocols.
So we're free to NOT use DHCP as long as we forego the functionality
that DHCP provides? I'm sorry, that's not a reasonable position.
So it may seem like DHCP folks are trying to impose one model of
networks. But the real goal is to avoid creating a second,
less-functional way of doing the same thing as DHCP already does in
the network.
Less-functional is in the eye of the beholder. I don't want to run
DHCPv6 just to learn DNS server addresses. I can think of scenarios
where DHCPv6 would be appropriate, but none of them apply to me today
so I don't want to run the protocol. It's as simple as that.
expect to get
push-back from DHCP folks for whatever the *next* thing people try to
put into RAs is. Not because we are fighting against your network
design, but rather to avoid creating duplicate, complicated,
non-interacting protocols. We want to put the right functionality in
the right place.
In database design it's a bad idea to duplicate information. However,
in database DEPLOYMENT this is pretty common for performance/
reliability reasons. Duplication can make sense.