[147978] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Dec 28 22:34:28 2011
In-Reply-To: <4EFBA369.8090103@dougbarton.us>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:33:32 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 03:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> Second, publishing specifications, implementing them and waiting for
>> users to adopt them takes a very, very long time. For DHCPv6 support,
>> the time from first publication (2003) until wide availability (2011)
>> has been 8 years. Are we ready to live in a half-baked world for
>> another half a decade or more just so we can add this feature, while
>> layer 2 filtering and VLANs more easily support similar
>> functionality?
>
> 10-12 years ago I attempted to make 2 points to the IPv6 literati. First
> that IPv6 would not be widely adopted in the enterprise until it had
> full DHCP parity with v4. Second that the easiest way to do that would
+1000
> be to declare all existing DHCPv4 options that are relevant to IPv6 as
> existing in DHCPv6 by fiat, and to prevent new v6-only options from
> using option numbers that already exist for v4 (and vice versa). I was
> laughed out of the room on both counts. (If anyone wants more of the
similarly folks keep laughing (or at least harumphing loudly) when
enterprise folk say: "Hey, I use dhcp today for a large number of
things, I can't NOT use it going forward, support the features in v4
dhcp that I use in your new v6 thingy."
anyway, it seems to be getting slightly better, bolting more crud on
ND so you can continue to say: "Yea, but you SHOULD use ...." is
wasted breath.
-chris
