[ipv6hackers] Help with business case for RDNSS

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:42:41PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Some people don't want the overhead of running a DHCP server. Not
> all routers support DHCPv6 servers and even the ones that do, there
> are reasons not to want to tie up your router doing DHCP just for
> DNS servers to be issued.

While I'm actually a fan of RDNSS, the argument "tie up your router doing
DHCP" is not the strongest I've seen - stateless(!) DHCPv6 is pretty
lightweight, needs no storage on the router, and fairly little CPU.

The overhead is a bit higher than for RDNSS, as you actually need to
send one extra packet per machine every few hours - but unless you have
a *really* huge number of hosts in your LAN, that's not really such
a high number of packets, compared to a 50 Mbit/s VDSL LAN link, no? 


My main argument for RDNSS is "RAs are there anyway, so you do not need
dual protocol implementations, and debug two different things if it's
not working" (operational simplicity).  The counter argument is, of course,
that not all networks and not all clients have RDNSS, so you need to have
both anyway :-/

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279