> 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.
On the other hand, some operators have concluded that RA/SLAAC is simply insufficient. Currently, they need to use RA plus some other mechanism (for instance DHCP) - but they would *prefer* to use only one mechanism. Currently, SLAAC/RA alone cannot supply all the necessary parameters - but people seem to want to put more and more into RA/SLAAC. That would be fine by me *if* we can also have a full featured DHCP which can operate without RA. Yes, I know there's strong political/religious resistance to doing this - but I believe this is where we're headed... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
