On Dec 30, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > I have yet to see a use case from enterprise that actually requires RIO or > default route in DHCPv6, and I have seen many many use cases. > > Most of them are, actually, better solved through education, so I tend to > focus my efforts in that area. > > If you can find someone who wants to pay me to plead the enterprise cases to > the IETF, I suppose I might be interested in that job if it came with the > right offer, but for now, that’s not what I get paid to do.
The kinky layer-2 stuff I've seen some places do tells me they won't be able to deploy IPv6 without it. I think the key here is "feature parity" and the whole "96 more bits no magic" aspect. The option is low hanging fruit to solve a problem. Perhaps it's just a conceptual problem (eg: DHCPv4 gives me option #4. I should have a comparable option# in IPv6!). While I may not need option #37 (or folks may not use it), sending a RS in addition to DHCPv6 request is two steps in host configuration, whereas one should be able to suffice (perhaps). It's also about authorization though, I could get a RA back from the RS from an unexpected (rogue) device in the same way I could see a rogue DHCP response as well. I have logging on my DHCP server, but I don't have that capability from a RA/RS stance. One is central (but perhaps relayed), the other is local (and never relayed). Seems a lot of emails over something simple that's not much creep and just "parity". (enjoy other great options here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml#options .. I need my quotes server for IPv6 via DHCPv6 too). - Jared
