On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:52:53PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote: > On Mar 26, 2014 6:27 PM, "Luke S. Crawford" <l...@prgmr.com> wrote: > > My original comment and complaint, though, was in response to the > assertion that DHCPv6 is as robust as DHCPv4. My point is that DHCPv6 > does not fill the role that DHCPv4 fills, if you care about tying an IP to > a MAC and you want that connection to persist across OS installs by > customers. > > You're right. DHCPv6 is more robust than DHCPv4. At least those of us in > the enterprise space appreciate a client identifier that doesn't change > when the hardware changes.
No, it is LESS robust, because the client identifier changes when the SOFTWARE changes. Around here, software changes MUCH more often than hardware. Heck, even a dual-boot scenario breaks the client identifier stability. Worse yet, DHCPv6 has created a scenario where a client's IPv4 connectivity and IPv6 connectivity break under /different/ scenarios, causing difficult-to-troubleshoot half-connectivity issues when either the hardware is replaced or the software is reloaded.
