> > Some of us would disagree rather strongly with one or more of those
> > points. For instance, for us DHCPv6 is a hard requirement.
> >
> Why the hard requirement? Is this for a MAC<->IP association table?
> I'm working on a method (might not work mind you) to make a SLAAC
> network forfill this requirement...I have to so we meet our upstream
> AUP requirements but running DHCPv6 kinda misses the point for why you
> try to deploy IPv6. :)
This is an old discussion, and has been rehashed a number of times on
various DHCP and IPv6 mailing lists. In any case:
- SLAAC cannot distribute all the parameters that DHCP distributes to
customers today. Example of parameters needed: DNS servers, domain
name, NTP servers, ...
- DHCP is tightly integrated with various operational and support
systems.
- DHCP lets us control customer address allocation from one central
point, instead of having to individually configure routers.
See also
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2009-February/007535.html
In short, a number of operators (including the one I work for) have
concluded that SLAAC is woefully insufficient for the bulk handling of
large number of customers (customers which use DHCPv4 today).
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected]
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
