> >The obvious conclusion to this argument is that a *lot* of DHCP >functionality will be duplicated in ND. Is this where we want to go? > >I'm coming from the DHCP side of the argument. In my world DHCP is >needed because it gives you a single place to handle dynamic address >allocation, *and* it ties in with all sorts of support & backend >systems.
=> Agreed. I'm not coming from a DHCP side of the argument but I see the only reason for having this feature is that some people think adding/implementing this in ND is more convenient than adding a DHCP agent/relay. I don't agree. But even if that's the truth, it seems to be six of one and half dozen of the other. No compelling reason AFAICS. Hesham > >I am against adding lots of new ND functionality until we have DHCPv6 >that is considerably more feature complete. Some of this is probably >coming (client MAC address), some of it is still being opposed for >mostly religious reasons (e.g. running DHCP without RA). > >Steinar Haug, AS 2116 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
