To:
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
From:
Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Date:
Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:27:55 -0600
In-Reply-To:
<9F32C7C8-1AEB-11D8-A047-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: DHCPv6lite, RA and WKA
On Nov 19, 2003, at 5:53 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > I find it surprising that this problem has never come up in IPv4. In > IPv6 it could potentially be worse as hosts already have an address so > the DHCP traffic can get in the way of real traffic, unlike with IPv4. Could you explain what you mean here? This doesn't make any sense to me. The transport model for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 are virtually identical, so I'm having trouble understanding what the distinction is that you're making. I don't think the presence of a link-local address in IPv6 makes any difference, and I don't see how, in the stateless case, the address acquired from stateless addrconf makes any difference, since the DHCPv6 client still has to talk to the relay agent. #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.