need for DHCPv6 [Re: Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion]

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at
Thu Nov 17 00:53:18 CET 2011

On 2011-11-17 12:05, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 14:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On networks I know, including the one I used to
>> be responsible for so long ago that DHCP was a new feature, *exactly* the
>> same team controls the routers, the DHCP servers and the DNS servers.
> I think part of the difference lies in the size of the enterprise in
> question, and part lies in the evolution of those roles in the "typical
> enterprise IT shop" over time. The operator community (including me) has
> been saying for over a decade that IPv6 needs DHCP parity with v4, in
> part for this exact reason.

Yes, and I suspect the DHC WG of the IETF would agree with you (although
'parity' doesn't mean identical options, because the detailed needs
are different). The intention, as I recall it, of starting off in IPv6
by defining RA, ND and SLAAC was to allow plug-and-play for simple, and
possibly disconnected, networks.

What we keep arguing about is the exact scale of network above which
DHCPv6 is a necessity. I'm not even sure that's an argument worth
having. People who need DHCPv6 will run it.

What is worth arguing about is how to resolve operational conflict
between the solutions.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list