I don't see how this has a practical impact especially in terms of configuration. In all the implementations of DHCPv6 that I encountered, DHCPv6 PD is trivial to set up and to maintain.- implementation complexity (how many lines of code, any particularly difficult issues, etc.) -- DHCPv6: dozens? of thousands
Concerning RFC3315: I know people who implemented DHCPv6 and the essence of what they told me about the RFC is that, though it is quite a long document, it is indeed very comprehensive, sound, complete and it hardly poses any open questions.
I disagree. Especially upcoming commercial DHCPv6 implementations will have a stress on easy maintenance and interoperability with external customer data sources like databases. And if this infrastructure is present, I can only see advantages in the use of DHCPv6.- requirements from the system (how does the mechanism interface with the routers, access databases, etc. -- e.g., do you need to have v6 support in RADIUS databases, do you need to have customer information stored there, how is that communicated to the router or the DHCPv6 server): It appears as if DHCPv6 has non-trivial set-up complexity.
True. This is why I think we should stick to DHCPv6 for PD.Well, I think we're discussing a very fundamental issue; it's IMHO much more non-sensical to invent new protocols just because we can.
As said before, DHCPv6 for PD is so trivial to configure that I don't see a point in trying to cook up an "easier" solution.the simpler setups where the complexity is unnecessary and redundant. In such scenarios, DHCPv6 is more likely than not even used (e.g., with IPv6-over-IPv4 configured tunnels) -- and should not be required (IMHO, of course).
It is important to make sure which point of view we're talking about. To a certain extent, DHCPv6 might not make sense for smaller networks (maybe some 30 nodes that connect). But I have no doubt that for bigger networks it definitely presents quite a benefit. So from an enterprise point of view, I don't think anything else than DHCPv6 for PD makes sense. On the contrary, most enterprise site will most likely deploy DHCPv6 anyhow, so maintaining an additional mechanisms would create administrative overhead.
Christian
--
JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Strauf
A DFN project Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung
Team: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Röntgenstrasse 9-13
Priv: [EMAIL PROTECTED] D-48149 Münster / Germany
GPG-/PGP-Key-ID: 1DFAAA9A Fon: +49 251 83 31639, Fax: +49 251 83 31653
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
