On Jan 28, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason I prefer this to "whatever finishes first" is that it is a > bit more deterministic and so easier to troubleshoot. I also don't > clients to connect to http://<uri-from-dhcpv6> one day, after an OS > upgrade, suddenly start connecting to http://<uri-from-ra>. In theory > (and if the CP operators is sane) the <uri-from-dhcpv6> == > <uri-from-ra>, but...
In practice it's always going to be RA-first, because DHCPv6 doesn't start until after RA. And it's likely going to be non-deterministic whether it's RA-first or DHCPv4-first, rather than being a function of some implementation detail in the O.S. So I think Joel is right that there's no benefit to insisting on an ordering. I think you should just say that the ordering is indeterminate, and if different mechanisms give non-equivalent answers, this is likely to cause operational problems in practice. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
