[138156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Mon Feb 28 16:05:53 2011
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:16:30 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1298879376.2109.63.camel@karl>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:49:36PM +1100, Karl Auer wr=
ote:
> I do think though, that assuming DHCP is the way to get some of these
> things might be shooting from the hip. Perhaps there is a better way,
> with IPv6?
DHCP is a terrible protocol for 2011, and will be an old school
throwback by 2040. The fact that it's the option on the table for
IPv6 is a shame.
> The difficulty is that now everyone is in a tearing hurry; they just
> want everything to work the exact same way, and they want it NOW. There
> is "suddenly" no time to work out better ways. And goodness knows there
> must be a better way to boot a remote image than delivering an address
> via DHCP!
Those who designed IPv6 appear to have ignored the problem space.
They could have offered a better solution, but did not. There
seemed to be this idea that most of what DHCP did was deliver an
address, which is a very naive way of looking at it. So they came
up with a new method to get an address and ignored the rest of the
usage models.
Bootp nee DHCP was designed in an era where a TCP stack in an
embedded device was a costly addition. Now a full TCP/IP stack
comes for free with a $0.50 micro-controller. If RA's could give
out a "configuration IP address" hosts could tftp/http/whatever
down a config file, text, xml, some new format. There could have
been innovation in the space, and the time to sell people that it
was the right thing to do.
For some reason though we all went head in the sand. And I mean
all, operators ignored the IETF until it was too late, the IETF
decided the operators didn't know what they were talking about
and/or were stuck in an IPv4 world. So now we have a gap, a very
short time frame, and only one half done solution on the table.
We'll likely have to run with it as starting over now would take
too much time.
It's really a gigantic missed opportunity that probably will only
come along every few decades. Maybe the next time around we'll do
better.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD)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=mf7+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--
