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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The single protocol barrier which stops me in theory from being able to
> completely remove RAs from my networks is dhcpv6 default gateway option.
>
> I understand that there are several other things that RA also handles, but
> defgw is sine qua non.  I can live with /64 + 1500mtu everywhere, but it's
> not possible to have a functional auto-configured network without a default
> gateway option.
>
> Several IDs have been put forward to remedy this, but they were shot down
> not on any real technical basis but because of opinion.
>

Can we stop flogging this dead horse please? This keeps getting proposed,
every time in a different working group, and keeps failing to achieve
consensus. It's a huge waste of time.

I understand that you think that opinion is not a valid reason, but I would
like to point out that yours is also an opinion. Yes, DHCPv6 allows you to
configure more options than RAs, but it's also less flexible in some ways
(e.g., doesn't support load-balancing over multiple routers, doesn't easily
support deprecation, etc.). So I think it's clear that one is not
necessarily better than the other.

I understand the point of view "this is MY network, and in MY network, I
want to use DHCPv6 ONLY", but remember that in many cases, the hosts that
connect to your network are the same hosts that connect to other networks,
and those host implementers probably also only want to reduce the number of
scenarios they support.