On 13 okt 2008, at 18:20, Thomas Narten wrote:
In the spirit of keeping this discussion productive and about engineering, can you please explain why (operationally or technically) that always is "not acceptable"?
Ok: On 13 okt 2008, at 18:19, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I don't have any use for DHCPv6. I need a way to shut up DHCPv6 clients that may end up visiting my network. Running DHCPv6 in a network that doesn't support is is especially harmful because there will be lots of retransmissions, which are multicasts that use up a lot of airtime on wifi networks.
This probably wasn't very clear. What I mean is the situation where clients would be initiating DHCPv6 but there are no DHCPv6 servers. This is unnecessary multicast traffic that could easily affect wifi performance because on 802.11 multicasts are generally sent at the lowest supported speed.
Routers have been supporting the setting of the M and O bits for ages so it's no trouble setting those if DHCPv6 is desired, so there is no real downside to limiting the use of DHCPv6 to the situation where at least one of these bits is present in router advertisements from at least one router. (It would even be possible to generate RAs with a 0 lifetime with M/O set for this purpose, hosts won't create a default route for those RAs.)
A corner case is the situation where there are no routers, but I don't see how having a DHCPv6 server in that case still makes sense (would it even work?), communication can and probably should happen over link locals in this case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
