Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> The first step is to add an option to the router solicitation message
> that makes it possible to use this message as the start of a DHCP
> exchange. This way, a host doesn't have to know whether it will
> receive configuration through RAs or DHCP or both, and there is no
> delay if there are no RAs. I'm not sure whether the option should
I don't see what that fixes. It appears to reduce the traffic from
three packets {RS, RA, DHCP Solicit} down to two {RS, RA "Enhanced"},
but I'm not sure why that's an important consideration. Is getting
rid of one packet per link start-up a useful thing to do when it also
means that DHCPv6 servers and routers will be architecturally joined
at the hip, limiting deployment options, and when it means that
Proposed Standard documents need to be roto-tilled?
To me, that sounds like high cost with essentially no benefit. What
am I missing?
> A new DHCP capability is address registration. This means that the
> host selects one or more addresses autonomously, and then tells the
> DHCP server about those addresses, for the following purposes:
You can already do that if you want. See RFC 3315 section 18.1.1 --
you can include IAs for the addresses you want or already have in your
DHCP Request message.
> - to avoid DAD
Avoiding DAD doesn't sound like a good goal to me. It means that the
system _assumes_ that the rest of the world is perfect and never has
any problems.
But do what you feel you must on your own networks and in your own
products.
--
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
