[141965] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Wed Jun 15 00:44:44 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <377E4C6A-D179-4083-B3EF-5E71FE612113@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:43:22 -0700
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>=20
>> On 12 jun 2011, at 15:45, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>=20
>>>> Like I said before, that would pollute the network with many =
multicasts which can seriously degrade wifi performance.
>>=20
>>> Huh? This is no worse than IPv4 where a host comes up and sends a
>>> subnet-broadcast to get DHCP.
>>=20
>> The IPv4 host does this once and gets its lease. If there is no =
DHCPv6 server then DHCPv6 clients would keep broadcasting forever. Not a =
good thing.
>>=20
>=20
> Which is no worse than the behavior of an IPv4 host on a network =
without a DHCP server.
An ipv4 host will in most cases configure itself with a link-local =
address. A possibly surprising number of people consider this broken, =
when in fact it's working. the possiblity that autoconfiguration of =
networks would occur when no routers or dhcp servers exist has some =
utility just as it did when windows started doing this with ipv4 circa =
1998.
> Owen
>=20
>=20
>=20
