In message <09c9d1b8-f003-4932-abc1-7299f81f1...@sackheads.org>, John Payne writes: > > On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:15 PM, George Herbert wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum = > <iljit...@muada.com> wrote: > >> On 2 feb 2011, at 17:14, Dave Israel wrote: > >>=20 > >>>> I understand people use DHCP for lots of stuff today. But that's = > mainly because DHCP is there, not because it's the best possible way to = > get that particular job done. > >>=20 > >>> So what if I want to assign different people to different resolvers = > by policy? > >>=20 > >> For the record: I'm not saying that DHCPv6 is never useful. DHCPv6 is = > intended as a stateful configuration provisioning tool, i.e., to give = > different hosts different configurations. If that's what you need then = > DHCP fits the bill. However, in most small scale environments this is = > not what's needed so DHCP doesn't fit the bill. > >=20 > > There are all sized enivronments. Political battles having partly > > crippled DHCPv6 in ways that end up significantly limiting IPv6 uptake > > into large enterprise organizations ... it's hard to describe how > > frustrating this is without resorting to thrown fragile objects > > against hard walls. As an active consultant to medium and large > > enterprises, this is driving me nuts. > >=20 > > This single item is in my estimation contributing at least 6, perhaps > > 12 months to the worldwide average delay in IPv6 uptake. I know > > several organizations that would have been there six months ago had > > DHCPv6 not had this flaw. They're currently 6-12 months from getting > > there. > > Well, to be fair... In my "decent sized" enterprise, DHCPv6 and the lack = > of default route is irritating but not the blocker. > The second largest OS we have doesn't support DHCPv6 at all, so its not = > like fixing the default route option is a magic bullet.
So complain to the OS vendor. DHCPv6 should be there. DHCPv6 is many years old now. It's been part of the configuration model for a node for over a decade. > So, we're going to have DHCP for IPv4 and SLAAC for IPv6 for now. DNS, = > NTP, etc will be done over IPv4 - no way around that. > > We have vendor struggles. The current pain is the lack of good support = > for VRRPv3. RA guard is another.=20 > > However, IPv6 on the enterprise network will continue to be seen as an = > after thought until and unless we get parity.= -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
