Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

[sthaug () nethelp no]

> > Several large operators have said, repeatedly, that they want to use
> > DHCPv6 without RA. I disagree that this is stupid.
>
> I wonder if it's just a "violation" of rule #1: stop thinking legacy!

If having a significant infrastructure that supports IPv4 DHCP is
legacy, yes then you could argue that this is legacy. "Stop thinking
legacy" is easy to say - however, it has a very real *cost* if you
need to change large parts of this infrastructure.

> From my own point of view, I also regard the dependency DHCPv6 on RA
as a completely *unnecessary* dependency which has been introduced
with IPv6. I would much rather have DHCPv6 as a protocol that can be
operated on its own, without RA. [Yes, you would still need Neighbor
Discovery / Neighbor Solicitation.]

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no