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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 3, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Tony Hain <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
It appears you missed my point that my personal preference is to avoid using
DHCPv6 for this single function, because I have no other ongoing need. At
the same time, as I said my personal preference doesn't matter, and I will
defend the right of others to have the tools they expect.

This argument would be a good justification for perpetuating the use of NetBIOS.

What I mean is that if we are trying to replicate functionality, that doesn't motivate us to choose DHCP over RA, or vice versa: we can just replicate the functionality in whatever way is most architecturally appropriate, and be happy that we have provided people with the tools they need to do their job.

If, on the other hand, what we need to do is to produce functionality that matches someone's mental model of how networks work, then that's a very different problem.   But we do not want to do that; if we did, we would have adopted NetBIOS.

Nobody's saying that people can't use NetBIOS if they want, and nobody's saying people can't use IPv4 behind a NAT if they want.   But your argument doesn't really address the question, which is, is there a *need* for the DHCPv6 route option?   Is there a use case that RA doesn't address, or addresses poorly, but that DHCPv6 route does address.

Tony, when I asked you to specifically say why RA didn't address your use case, you didn't answer my question.   Instead you said, effectively "no, people want NetBIOS."   That's orthogonal to the question.   *Is* there something RA can't do well that DHCPv6+Route can?   If so, can you clearly state what that is?   If not, then you haven't articulated a use case.   "Somebody wants to use a hammer" is not a use case.