On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:13:17 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark, > > On 2011-05-24 09:56, Mark Smith wrote: > ... > > I'm not particularly pro-SLAAC, however I sit back and wonder what is > > missing from it that makes DHCP essential? > > To be blunt, that conversation isn't worth having. SLAAC is clearly > essential for isolated or bootstrapping networks to self-configure. > DHCP is clearly viewed as essential by many network managers. EOM. > " 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements." It's shame IPv6 fails on that count. I'm genuinely asking what the improvements are to justify why two mechanisms that are almost functionally equivalent. > ... > > >> (Hmm, maybe I should just write such a spec now, given the M&O bit > >> definitions are in the twilight zone anyway... Discussion of what to > >> do with them was effectively removed from the last revisions of the > >> SLAAC documents, so now there is no clear guidance on how to process > >> them. The IETF at its finest...) > >> > > > > I'm a bit confused, I find this text in RFC4862 quite clear as to what > > to do - > > It doesn't specify startup defaults and the like. RFC 5887, Section 5.1.1, > bottom of page 12, discusses this. > > If you're concerned about SLAAC/DHCPv6 conflict resolution, see > draft-liu-ipv6-renum-conflicts (and join the re...@ietf.org list). > Thanks for the reference, I'll have a look. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
