> > Several large operators have said, repeatedly, that they want to use > > DHCPv6 without RA. I disagree that this is stupid. > > I wonder if it's just a "violation" of rule #1: stop thinking legacy!
If having a significant infrastructure that supports IPv4 DHCP is legacy, yes then you could argue that this is legacy. "Stop thinking legacy" is easy to say - however, it has a very real *cost* if you need to change large parts of this infrastructure. >From my own point of view, I also regard the dependency DHCPv6 on RA as a completely *unnecessary* dependency which has been introduced with IPv6. I would much rather have DHCPv6 as a protocol that can be operated on its own, without RA. [Yes, you would still need Neighbor Discovery / Neighbor Solicitation.] Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no