On 24-jul-2006, at 19:04, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
DHCPv6 isn't needed today, and the RDNS option makes sure it's not
needed in the future where there is no IPv4 RDNS server configured,
either.
DHCPv6 _is_ needed in many cases today due to devices which require
options other than RDNS. For instance, many embedded devices need
TFTP servers to boot.
:-)
Are you serious? These days more than enough flash to store an
embedded OS can be had for a buck or so.
Forcing them to implement a DHCPv6 client just to get one option
seems wasteful, given part of the justification for the RDNS option
is to remove DHCPv6 from beefy devices like PCs.
If you really think this is useful then go ahead and define something
using RAs, but I think the days of tftp booting are over. And
certainly server-wise, if you can run a tftp server you can run a
dhcpv6 server. In fact, the need to have routers that support the
tftp boot option could be a deployment issue here.
The difference between DNS and these others is that EVERY general
purpose host connected to the internet needs to have DNS servers
configured, while this isn't true for the other protocols, and/or the
server for these other protocols is much less dependent on the
connectivity of the host at any given moment in time.
Not all the world is a PC running a web browser. Lots of embedded
devices have no use for DNS.
So what kind of communication do they engage in?
I don't see why there's resistance to importing either specific
DHCP options or the entire lot into the RA, rather than limiting
ourselves to RDNS.
I don't have insurmountable problems with this, but this not the
issue under consideration right now, the RA option for DNS
configuration is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
