> > This is the crux of the fundamental underlying disagreement > > we are having on what we are trying to solve here. > > > > In my view, it is nuts to have devices "that choose to > > implement only stateless addrconf" because they are "simple" > > or "perfectly happy" or something. If we go down this route, > > it is not an operational choice whether to run DHC, because > > implementations have already made that choice. > > I agree with you 100% that implementing only stateless > because it is simpler is "nuts". If you look at the number > of packets that need to be exchanged, DHCP is really not that > hard. > > However, one need to deal with today's reality. > > It seems to still be the case in 2006 that most implementations only > offer stateless autoconf. There is some kind of myth that this > is "enough".
=> Hmm. I find both of the statements above surprising. It's not a myth that the node requirements document says that stateless is the only mandatory option. You can't blame an implementer for not implementing a MAY in the doc. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
