Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > On 13-aug-2007, at 19:25, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote: > > > DHCPv6 messages are generally small and don't require a lot of back > > and > > further. I really don't understand why people are objecting to one or > > two request/reply exchanges (only the request of which is multicast). > > Sure, it be nice if there were zero messages, but we're basically down > > to as few as possible and most of these messages are tiny (especially > > compared to the 300+ bytes that is the minimal size of DHCPv4 > > messages). > > It adds up if you have a large number of hosts on a subnet.
I doubt it. It's something you do just when you're configuring the interface, and then you're done. If you're in fact in the state where you can't even bear the load of configuring the interfaces, then I suspect that neighbor discovery, DNS, and plain old user data traffic will overwhelm you. DHCPv6 (using Information Request or Rapid Commit) is just two packets when the interface is configured. All those other protocols are going to add dozens, hundreds, or more for each host. > Which got me thinking: wouldn't it be great if a single message from > a host could serve as both a router solicitation and a DHCP solicit > message? I'm not wild about the idea of a single message getting replies from two separate entities. I suppose it's doable, but it seems like needless complexity. What is being optimized and why? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
