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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Simplicity is a critically important design goal for anything related to
> engineering, and the old maxim is true: "everything should be kept as
> simple as possible, but no simpler".
>

But what you propose is not simple. In fact, far from it. What you propose
requires a DHCPv6 server that's always up and perpetually maintains state,
and it requires that you run VRRP between the routers because DHCPv6. If
you were designing a system from the ground up I'd wager you'd never design
it like that. So why do it like that, then? Because "we already run DHCPv6
for other reasons, so let's just use it"? Isn't that a bit of a sunk cost
fallacy?

If possible, I'd really like if we could have a non-heated discussion about
> the technical pros and cons of whether standalone DHCPv6 is viable.
>

Oh, it is viable. We know it works - after all, we do it in IPv4. It works
well, because in IPv4 we have VRRP, things don't change often, and we have
NAT. But many people feel that this time around we can do better than that.