Doug, I am confused by your comments.
Let me describe how I understand the situation. We claimed, when we
crafted IPv6, that hosts did not need to use DHCP for address
assignment. As such, many host stacks did not use DHCP for address
assignment.
Now, operators wanted to offer IPv6 service. I hope we think that is a
good thing. For residential, they looked at what they could count on
from the hosts. And some of them concluded that they could not count on
DHCP, so they designed an architecture around SLAAC. In other words,
they ddi what we told them to do.
There are other constraints, and the problems that result are not simple
to solve. But they do not matter for your comment.
You seem to be saying that even though the operators did what we told
them, we should tell them "sorry, you need to redesign your network, and
you need to assume DHCP based address assignment for all devices in the
home, even if you can not count on actually having that work??"
Yours,
Joel
On 9/8/2010 1:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Ralph,
I use IPv6 in XP so I can confirm your suspicion on both counts.
IPv6-only is a non-starter for XP.
Suresh,
I understand your goals quite well, which is why I'm opposed to the
adoption of the draft. :) Since practically Day 1 of the IPv6 effort
there has been a movement to make SLAAC/RA a full-featured replacement
for DHCP, by hook or crook. Please note, I am not impugning _your_
motives, but I am opposed to your goal.
Doug
On 09/08/2010 09:17 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Nit: seems unlikely to me you will have any XP devices running
IPv6-only; if my understanding of the situation is correct, such a
device requires manual installation of the IPv6 stack and still
requires IPv4 for DNS.
- Ralph
On Sep 8, 2010, at 5:36 PM 9/8/10, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Doug,
On 10-09-08 02:02 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 09/07/2010 06:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including
per host prefixes/options) how long before options are added so SLAAC
becomes an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
This is the basis of my opposition to adopting the draft (expressed
neatly here, as well as by other authors in this thread).
As I said in my response to Shree, the goal is to provide support for
SLAAC-only IPv6 clients. It is not a practical option to require
support for stateful DHCPv6 for clients that are no longer supported
(e.g. XP). I agree that going forward, stateful DHCPv6 will be a
solution for this problem.
Thanks
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
