Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Okay. How is this problem currently addressed on llns?

On Nov 14, 2017 17:07, "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
>
>
> The sensitivity I have is for aeronautical data links that have bandwidths
> south of
>
> 1Mbps with some being as low as 32Kbps. I realize that these are marginal
> even
>
> for running IPv6 in the first place. But, if we are to do IPv6 at all we
> need to keep
>
> the number of control messages to an absolute minimum. I realize this may
> not
>
> be as much of a concern for the majority of modern wired-line and wireless
> links
>
> that we see in the Internet but with the airplanes we don’t have that
> luxury.
>
>
>
> Thanks - Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 11:39 PM
> *To:* Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and IPv6ND
>
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> I
>
> think I have a fair question. How can we get the functionality of IPv6ND
>
> RA and DHCPv6 PD in a single request/response message exchange?
>
>
>
> Right now, you can't.   The question is, why is this a problem?
>
>
>
> We've been around on this a lot of times.   I don't see any reason to do
> it again.   But if you want to do it, you need to say why it's a problem
> that you have to do router discovery, why it's better to configure the DHCP
> server with router topology information, how you're going to get the right
> router link-local address to send, and why all of this complexity is
> somehow a better solution than router advertisements.
>
>
>
> It's not good enough to just say "I'd really rather use DHCPv6 for this,
> can't we specify that?"
>
>
>