|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:25:09 +0000 From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <D69795DA-DFFA-4B4F-BA38-655A7FC83541@muada.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that > advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards packets > makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4. No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and DHCP for v6, so that everyone who has extracted any value from DHCP in their toolkit can continue to do so, and roll out v6 ! A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |