Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bert,

On Mon, 23 May 2011 18:07:15 -0500
"Manfredi, Albert E" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> > "  3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one.
> >    If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
> >    successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution
> > unless
> >    there is a good technical reason not to.  Duplication of the same
> >    protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without
> >    of course using this argument to reject improvements."
> > 
> > 
> > It's shame IPv6 fails on that count. I'm genuinely asking what the
> > improvements are to justify why two mechanisms that are almost
> > functionally equivalent.
> 
> Mark, as I suggested previously, DHCP is useful in cases where you need the IP addresses of hosts in a network to be predictable.

Isn't the best way to achieve predictable addresses to use static ones?

Or are you talking about an assured and automated permanent binding
between a link layer address and an IPv6 address? If it's the latter
then that is the only functionality gap I can think of between SLAAC
and DHCPv6, although obviously SLAAC addresses are usually derived from
link layer addresses.

> I have no idea why cable systems want DHCP, but I'm saying that IN
> GENERAL, if hosts needs to know a priori what the address of other
> hosts is, SLAAC falls flat on its face.
> 
> For example, a peer-to-peer network, where you don't want to rely on a DNS.
> 
> Bert
> 


Regards,
Mark.