Hi, On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:11:46PM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote: > But some people seem to think DHCP is a "mistake", and DHCP options a > "mistake" and allocating fixed IPs a "mistake". I cannot share that view.
Well, as always "there's more than one way to do it". The fact that
you like DHCP more, and that there are scenarios where DHCP is clearly
better suited (especially DHCP prefix delegation [which is actually
a fairly different protocol]...) doesn't mean all the people that like
SLAAC are "wrong".
> I think that holds IPv6 back, because a lot of enterprises aren't
> willing to be the guinea pigs for an unproven model where potentially
> rogue clients generate their own addresses as they please.
So what exactly prevents a rogue IPv6 client that got an address from the
DHCPv6 server from using the prefix known from DHCP from "generate its
own address as it pleases"?
A rogue client won't play by the rules - and won't really care if that
rule is "DHCPv6" or "SLAAC".
> I do think that there's nothing SLAAC can do that DHCPv6 can't do, if a
> prefix advertisment DHCPv6 option were created. And as I say, I wonder
> therefore what the point is - why couldn't these tiny home & office
> networks with ADSL just as easily embed a minimal DHCPv6 server, versus
> an RFC 5006 implementation?
I wonder that the point of "force DHCPv6 on everbody, just because DHCP
is liked more by some" is...?
A bit more tolerance and less "my solution is the only one that has any
right to survive!" would have helped a lot here.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpE92rEkYDTE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
