Hi Bert,
On Thu, 12 May 2011 17:22:05 -0500 "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com> wrote: > Mark Smith wrote: > > > I think it would be reasonable to make DHCP a SHOULD, however > > I've thought that one of the reasons SLAAC exists is to provide > > simpler and lighter weight address configuration method for resource > > constrained end-nodes such as embedded ones. So perhaps it could be > > worth mentioning that an example of an exception to the SHOULD would be > > those types of end-nodes. > > More generally, I'd say SLAAC exists because with IPv6 it's possible to > assign globally unique IP addresses to hosts, without risk of collisions, > without having to have the network specify all of the 128 bits. > > But in situations where the address provided to a host must be completely > predictable, SLAAC won't work. > > I don't think that resource-constrained need to be a significant criterion? > I'd thought that SLAAC was created instead of just making an IPv6 equivalent of DHCPv4 and leaving that as a single address configuration mechanism was because it required less maintained state and processing. Less maintained state and processing would best suit low CPU powered and memory devices, which is why I suggested "loosening" the SHOULD for DHCPv6 a bit for those devices. SLAAC is of course convenient in other situations too. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
