[142027] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 16 16:16:05 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <6D5F9460-7ED2-4CAC-802B-6E72F8CF903B@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:11:09 -0700
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>=20
> On Jun 13, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>>=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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
Yes, so will an IPv6 host. I'm not understanding your point here.
The point of the conversation is that the DHCPv6 packets going out on a =
network without a DHCPv6
server would be no worse than the DHCPv4 packets on a network without a =
DHCPv4 server today.
Owen
