Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-04-05 11:42, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
>> My understanding is that IT departments who currently manage layer 3
>> aspects of hosts via whatever database tool configures their DHCP[v6]
>> servers wish to continue doing so, rather than having to use a
>> different (or updated) tool to configure their RAs. The reason of
>> course is to reduce operational complexity and expense.
> 
> But *why*?   Please stop talking about feelings.   Please say why. 
> 
> For example, if using DHCPv6 instead of RA reduces operational complexity and expense, you should be able to say *why* it does so.

Because using one method of configuring hosts is less complex
and therefore cheaper than using two. It's clear that small simple
networks (the dentist's office scenario in the terminology we used
around 1995) can get by with RA alone, and it's clear that more
complex networks need much more flexibility. MIF and homenet are
both considering complex scenarios by this standard.

I now think that detailing use cases is beside the point. It's
simply a fact that above a certain level of complexity, operators
need the flexibility of DHCPv6 or RADIUS, and in that case, it is
less complex if everything configurable can be configured with the
same tool.

   Brian