On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 07:53:36AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > In a message written on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:34:57AM -0400, Ray Soucy > > wrote: > >> Also agree that I want flexibility to use RA or DHCPv6; the > >> disagreement is that RA needs to be removed or changed from IPv6. > >> Don't go breaking my IPv6 stack for your own ambitions, please. > > > > I want that flexability as well, but the IETF won't deliver. > > > > The two options delivered so far are: > > > > RA's only. > > Only sort of... This only works if you don't want to auto-configure things > like DNS, > NTP, etc. > > I would like to see both protocols made optionally complete, so, in addition > to fixing DHCPv6 by adding routing information options, I'd also like to > see something done where it would be possible to add at least DNS > servers to RA.
RFC6106... the future is nooooooow... I like it, inasmuch as I don't need to run a separate DHCPv6 server on a simple network, but that'd be equally solved by merging radvd into the DHCP server and just running that. The client-side configuration is annoying for RDNSS. - Matt
