Re: How IPv6 host gets DNS address

[Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>]

At 04:02 AM 11/6/2003, Tim Chown wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:21:29AM -0000, matthew.ford@bt.com wrote:
> >
> > From my perspective DHCPv6 has to be the only solution because multiple
> > solutions equals more complexity. I don't see any benefit to the
> > operator community from multiple solutions to this problem.
>
>It's possible the RA-based approach might be better suited to environments
>where there isn't an "operator" managing a DHCPv6 server, where basic
>connectivity and the requirement for a DNS resolver is all that is needed?

So either DHCPv6 is horribly more difficult for the unskilled end user to 
handle than DHCP in IPv4, or I'm missing something here. Today one can get 
a $50 box that does DHCP for IPv4 along with other functions. Such boxes 
are so simple to make function that millions of them have been sold.

Today we have small sites using DHCP by using appliance boxes that take 
care of the details, and we've got larger sites that manage DHCP services 
using real servers, proxies, and so forth.

So for which group is DHCPv6 perceived as too difficult?

Adding additional methods increases complexity, as others noted. I agree 
with the sentiment below that any need for additional complexity should be 
the result of studying operational experience.

>But I agree at present it is not clear that we can justify two methods until
>specific cases where the RA approach is advntageous are identified, from
>operational experience.
>
>So I agree we should press ahead and get operational experience with DHCPv6
>in real deployments.   If there are clear gaps, then we can work on the RA
>(or an alternative) method.   Well-known site locals are now off the table.

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.