[141756] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Palmer)
Fri Jun 10 23:39:50 2011
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:39:09 +1000
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <81A7C5A1-0424-4750-9F85-C3FBDE8C3771@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 07:53:36AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > In a message written on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:34:57AM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> >> Also agree that I want flexibility to use RA or DHCPv6; the
> >> disagreement is that RA needs to be removed or changed from IPv6.
> >> Don't go breaking my IPv6 stack for your own ambitions, please.
> >
> > I want that flexability as well, but the IETF won't deliver.
> >
> > The two options delivered so far are:
> >
> > RA's only.
>
> Only sort of... This only works if you don't want to auto-configure things like DNS,
> NTP, etc.
>
> I would like to see both protocols made optionally complete, so, in addition
> to fixing DHCPv6 by adding routing information options, I'd also like to
> see something done where it would be possible to add at least DNS
> servers to RA.
RFC6106... the future is nooooooow...
I like it, inasmuch as I don't need to run a separate DHCPv6 server on a
simple network, but that'd be equally solved by merging radvd into the DHCP
server and just running that. The client-side configuration is annoying for
RDNSS.
- Matt
