[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"
dougb at dougbarton.us
Sat Sep 8 21:42:17 CEST 2012
On 09/05/2012 23:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
> SLAAC+RDNSS is very useful. SLAAC without RDNSS not so much since you
> then have to deploy DHCP anyway just to get the basic functionality
> SLAAC should have originally included.
> Yes, lots of enterprises want DHCP for a variety of reasons (though I
> think that if they had SLAAC+RDNSS, many of the ones that currently
> think they need DHCP would realize they don't).
I work with a lot of enterprises on large-scale DHCP. It's actually
pretty common for them to want many more options set than just what the
resolving name servers are.
The other issue that comes up often in these discussions is the idea of
administrative separation between the people who run the routers, and
the people who handle things like DNS and DHCP. Most enterprises want
this separation preserved.
SLAAC was an interesting idea for the simple provisioning of dumb
devices. Anything more exciting requires DHCP. It's very unfortunate
that the anti-DHCP contingent is still fighting a battle that they lost
12 years ago, and delaying wider IPv6 rollout as a result.
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
More information about the Ipv6hackers