RE: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP

["Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" <rdroms@cisco.com>]

Sounds to me you're willing to force network admins to use RAs when they
don't really want to.

Which sound remarkably like what you object to when you think network
admins are being forced to use DHCP.

- Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:01 PM
To: Kevin Loch
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP


On 14-sep-2007, at 21:06, Kevin Loch wrote:

>> DHCPv6 without manual configuration or RAs doesn't work because
>> DHCPv6 can't tell you your default gateway.

> That can be fixed (and I'm sure it will).

"Fixed" in the sense of "work better than today" is not possible, in  
my opinion.

Having routers announce their presence makes sure all kinds of  
trouble that can easily occur with IPv4 isn't an issue with IPv6.

>> Look at that, someone bothered to do work on VRRP for IPv6. That
>> was a waste of time, because router advertisements and dead  
>> neighbor detection give you the same functionality without the  
>> need to configure stuff.

> RA's are great in certain situations, and I use it on some subnets but

> we must have a full set of tools that work with RA turned off.

Why?

> There are situations where I cannot have hosts (servers in particular)

> autoconfigure addresses or gateways, even accidentally.

Then they shouldn't listen to discovery protocols such as RA but also  
DHCP (and VRRP in the sense that you were suggesting although VRRP  
isn't designed to be that).

I'm not sure what implementations will do when a statically  
configured default fails (succeeds?) dead neighbor detection...