Re: [dhcwg] applicability of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ctep-opt-01

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2004, at 7:44 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > You're trading off having to
> > configure 90 tunnels in 10 border routers to having to configure 90
> > tunnels in 10 DHCPv6 servers.
> >
> > IMHO, in this kind of set-up, Using DHCPv6 just doesn't seem to make
> > sense.
> 
> Possibly it's easier to configure a DHCP server on a central server 
> somewhere with all this information rather than configuring the router, 
> because if the router dies then you have to remember to reconfigure it. 
>
>    But basically, I don't know.   :')

You'll have to reconfigure the router in any case to get the other 
connectivity working ;-).

Here, you don't get aggregation benefits as you have to configure
exactly the same information in 10 DHCPv6 servers as you'd have to do
in 10 routers.  If you would only need to configure 1 DHCPv6 server to
get the config to all the routers, some folks might think this gives 
additional benefits.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg