On Jan 27, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally like DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, but there seems to be some > religion around this stuff :-) > Supporting multiple option for v6 means need to provide guidance on > what to do when you get *different* answers in DHCPv6 and IPv6 RA. I > had text in -02 covering this, I can easily put it back. > > The whole DHCPv6 vs RA topic is, um, interesting... there appear to be > some quite strong opinions around this :-) > I'll spin another version with both DHCPv6 and RA, and guidance on > what to do if you get both. This will no-doubt annoy some folk, but I > can leave the consensus call to Joel :-)
The problem with RA as opposed to DHCPv6 is that we've seen that uptake of RA options is slow compared to uptake of DHCPv6 options. But we can't _just_ do DHCPv6, because as you say there is some religion about DHCPv6, and so certain companies are slow to implement DHCPv6 client features, if at all. I think the right answer in the case where one sends it and the other doesn't is to assume that whatever _was_ sent is definitive, since we can't assume that the source of the RA and the source of the DHCP service will necessarily be updated at the same time. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
