Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison-00.txt (fwd)

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

On 19/12/2013 16:25, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Fine, but please don't say it's simpler. It's not - it has way more moving
> parts.

No, actually it has a choice of moving parts and creating a priority
mechanism for selecting one over the other is actually simpler than
defining an interaction mechanism between the two.

> We can, but it won't get us anywhere. You've said that you want to run your
> network with DHCPv6 because RAs don't suit your requirements, and I'll say
> that I want to run my network with RAs because DHCPv6 doesn't suit my
> requirements. We will both have valid reasons, and probably we'll even
> concede that in each other's networks the other's solution might be better.

exactly.

> But once we reach that point, we're still stuck. Because the only way
> forward from there is to conclude that we need to define two completely
> autonomous and competing systems to provision the same protocol on the same
> host implementations, and choose one or the other depending on the
> deployment scenario. 

yes, that is the conclusion I have come to too.  And you know what?  It's
actually not a bad solution.

> This is a bad outcome, because hosts that want to work
> everywhere (and what host doesn't?) need to implement both protocols. The
> resulting complexity - which is more than 2x, because in addition to the
> two protocols you have to define and implement rules to deal with their
> interaction - pushes costs up for everyone, because everyone uses hosts,
> including me and you.

at the moment we have a mess which seems to work for some people but not
others, and which people have been complaining about loudly since the day
that dhcp became viable.

> That's why I say this is a dead horse - because there *is* no single
> technically correct answer.

exactly, which is why I think we need to acknowledge that it would be
better for everyone to come to some conclusion to this mess.  Let the
people who want to use and develop SLAAC do what they want to the protocol
and let the people who want to use and develop DHCPv6 do what they want.
We can put in an arbitration mechanism relatively easily.

I completely agree that these endless arguments are stupid.  But they will
continue until the heat death of the universe, or until we come to a
decision to split off the two protocols - whichever comes sooner.

Nick