Re: Architectural argument for RAs [Re: [69ATTENDEES] DHCP]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 21-sep-2007, at 21:39, Doug Barton wrote:

> Well at least you're finally making your argument explicit. You  
> want RAs to be mandatory for everyone, but you don't want us to  
> mandate the use of DHCP for you. Okey dokey.

Hey, I'm trying to show some openmindedness here by not rejecting the  
addition of gateway information to DHCPv6 out of hand. (Something  
which, apparently, the dhc wg didn't think was a good idea at the  
time DHCPv6 was conceived, because it isn't in there now.)

There are three questions:

1. Is there a reason why it would be helpful to run a network with  
routers but without RAs?

2. Would 1. be compelling enough to live with the loss of fate  
sharing it implies?

3. Would it be possible to set up hosts with default configuration  
that works both in currently deployed IPv6 networks and networks  
configured as per 1.?