To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date:
Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:30:27 +0000
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<6.0.0.22.2.20031106084050.02557288@mail.amaranth.net>
Mail-Followup-To:
dnsop@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.4i
Subject:
Re: How IPv6 host gets DNS address
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Daniel Senie wrote: > > 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. If only someone would add "simple IPv6 functionality" for these and still charge $50 - that would be one IPv6 barrier removed :) > So for which group is DHCPv6 perceived as too difficult? I agree that at this stage we suck DHCPv6 and see. But I have a feeling some environments, where only DNS resolver info is needed for operation, may be better suited to an RA-like method, perhaps very large subnets where multicast RA is much more efficient, or ad-hoc networks or other networks that are currently in a minority but likely to grow. > 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. I don't see any issue with progressing DHCPv6 or DHCPv6 Lite. But I wouldn't like to see an alternative (complementary) solution ruled out at this stage until we get that operational experience. Tim #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.