[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"
fgont at si6networks.com
Mon Sep 10 22:57:59 CEST 2012
On 09/10/2012 04:08 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> * Some guys say do not include more info in SLAAC -- if you need
>> additional info such as DNS, you should be doing DHCPv6.
> Yes, but they should be ignored, though other than RDNSS, I wouldn't
> really want to add anything else and agree that if you need more than
> the absolute basics, DHCPv6>SLAAC. The difference being that I
> consider RDNSS an absolute basic and some of the zealots in this
> argument do not.
Agreed. SLAAC without RDNSS does not make much sense at all.
>> The result of both factions is that, at the end of the day, you need to
>> support both protocols even for simple auto-configuration stuff.
> The most unfortunate part of it is that anybody actually listened to either
You might argue that that's what religious wars are all about. :-)
> SLAAC+RDNSS = perfectly functional for 99% of environments, actually.
> DHCPv6 = more comfortable for people used to DHCPv4 and more useful in areas where more extensive autoconf information or control
> is required.
> Simple as that, really.
> I've used both protocols and feel that they both have places where they excel and places where they are less desirable.
I fully agreed.
e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
More information about the Ipv6hackers