[136333] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Feb 2 11:14:22 2011
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:13:24 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <70C15FD9-CF85-4664-B913-3EBE4271C7F5@muada.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/2/2011 9:52 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I understand people use DHCP for lots of stuff today. But that's
> mainly because DHCP is there, not because it's the best possible way
> to get that particular job done.
I don't disagree that an anycast well known address would be nice for
say RA + SLAAC.
However, DHCP has many uses and requirements. It has versatility that RA
+ SLAAC doesn't have, especially when dealing with policies for specific
devices (which I understand DHCPv6 is missing some of this logic). This
includes DNS servers. When I am connected to certain parts of our
network, the DNS servers I receive are not the same as everyone around
me. This applies to VPN connections as well (though I realize in VPN I
could actually setup for the prefix to go via the VPN).
DHCP is about giving hosts information based on policies. The simpler
use of DHCP could easily be replaced, but the more common corporate uses
cannot. Currently, much of the functionality of DHCP is not included in
DHCPv6, which is a serious operations issue.
Jack
