[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 8, 2012, at 12:42 , Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:

> 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.
> 

So? No one is arguing against complete DHCP implementation. I'm arguing
for RDNSS implementation. They are not mutually exclusive.

> 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.
> 

And they can have it with DHCP. What's wrong with making RDNSS available
to the environments that want it?

> 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 completely disagree here. There are many environments where 99%
of the desktop users just need an address, DNS servers, and a default
route. In a lot of those environments, the guy running DNS is the same
guy running the routers. SLAAC+RDNSS is useful in those environments.

How did this become anti-DHCP? Nobody here was saying turn off
DHCP or don't do DHCP or anything like that. The point was the desire
to have RDNSS support for SLAAC.

Why is it that the DHCP-heads can't understand that pro-SLAAC is not
inherently anti-DHCP?

I say implement it all and let each environment pick the solution that works
best for them.

Owen