Re: DHCPv6lite, RA and WKA

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Ralph Droms;

> This issue has never been found to be a problem DHCPv4.

There is no such thing as stateless autoconf of IPv4.

> The appropriate
> timers will be added DHCPv6 to provide the same function in
> stateless DHCPv6 (as you point out, those timers exist when DHCPv6 is used
> for address assignment).

You mean you will have to develop yet another standard for yet
another protocol extension to get DHCPv6(-lite or whatever) work?

> "DHCP storm" has never been an issue for DHCPv4, where the problem is
> potentially more serious because DHCPv4 is usually used for address
> assignment.  What evidence do we have the "DHCP storm" will suddenly become
> a problem in DHCPv6?

In addition to a "stateless" cause, introduction of multicast, for
example, may casue the storm.

>> What I don't understand is the fear of well-known addresses. This 
>> subject seems to have an extensive history, but I can't seem to find 
>> the actual arguments, as the discussion has long since deteriorated to 
>> kindergarten level: "Would you want 200 million devices to be shipped 
>> with the DNS of your organization burned into ROM?"

> If well-known addresses are such a good idea, why haven't we adopted them
> for IPv4?

Because of a lot of misunderstandings on anycast, as demonstrated by
RFC1546, David, Bill, Mark and others, for example, that anycast
could have provided robustness, which promote unnecessarily complex
configuration (e.g. having servers sharing an address in a single
subnet is not a useful configuration), which is implies complex
operations.

							Masataka Ohta

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