[111959] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Tue Feb 17 15:49:22 2009
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: "'NANOG list'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <D34D7BAE-4781-4AE2-ABB2-6D211C9B7B85@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:49:08 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>do this, but others here do). For example, getting over the stateless
>autoconfig religion (which was never fully thought out -- how does a
>autoconfig'd device get a DNS name associated with their address in a
DNSSEC-
>signed world again?) and letting network operators use DHCP with IPv6 the
way
>they do with IPv4.
While I wouldn't call SLAAC a religion, I will say (again) that it works in
many cases for some people, today - and whether you consider SLAAC
"half-baked" or "slim-by-design" is a subjective matter.
In the meantime, I am also a proponent for letting ops use DHCPv6 ...
especially DHCPv6-PD!
