Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

Wed Apr 1 09:29:45 CEST 2020

If you’re receiving the messages is because YOU subscribed to the list.

If you subscribed to the list, you know how to unsubscribe.

If you don’t know it, you should be smart enough to look into the email header and you will find how to do it.

Just in case you don’t know how to do it, here is it for you:

List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops>,

            <mailto:ipv6-ops-request at lists.cluenet.de?subject=unsubscribe>

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 1/4/20 6:08, "Sunita Badiga" <ipv6-ops-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es at lists.cluenet.de en nombre de indrules at aol.com> escribió:

STOP FUCKING EMAILING ME 

UNSUBSCRIBE

On Mar 31, 2020, at 8:35 PM, james machado <hvgeekwtrvl at gmail.com> wrote:

The real problem is there are distinct use cases for both SLAAC and DHCPv6 and the people in charge of DHCPv6 keep screwing up.  It should be possible to run either SLAAC/RA or DHCPv6 and have each offering provide the required information without having to run additional services just to get basic feature parity to IPv4.  This is slowing implementation in enterprise networks.

james

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:24 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

On 31-Mar-20 23:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
> 
> 
> On 31/Mar/20 12:09, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
> 
>> Note that there have been multiple requests for DHCPv6 to do this but
>> every attempt has been shot down.
> 
> Yep - thankfully, we have an option.
> 
> Operating two address assignment protocols is just silly.
> 
> At my house, I don't even bother with DHCPv6 for DNS. I just use the
> IPv4 ones and let SLAAC assign IPv6 addresses to my devices. Just about
> done with the purist madness around this.

There's purism (which I don't understand) and there's also historical
baggage that is incredibly hard to get rid of. As I have reminded from
time to time, SLAAC was designed and implemented for IPv6 *before* DHCP
became a proven technology for IPv4 (i.e. many of us were still running
around manually assigning IPv4 addresses to newly installed Suns and
NCDs and the like). DHCPv6 was an afterthought.

Unfortunately, the purism has made it impossible to have a rational
discussion about engineering our way out of this historical duplication.

On 01-Apr-20 05:01, Gert Doering wrote:

...
> As soon as you have a larger routed network, mDNS falls short, and 
> (unless you have a windows domain) there are no existing mechanisms
> to put a SLAAC v6 address into DNS...

I think there's no *deployed* mechanism. DynDNS is said to work in the
lab. There's also some hope that DNS-SD will alleviate this problem, 
but only if it gets deployed.

> Yes, thanks, IETF.  Well done.

It's not because nobody has tried. But the bridge between theory and
operations seems to be hard to cross.

On 01-Apr-20 07:21, James R Cutler wrote:

...
> Wouldn’t it be more cost effect in the long term to simply make SLAAC and DHCPv6 cooperative and complementary attributes of end-to-end networking? 

Well, duh. What we need is more people with real operational smarts
able to spend a lot of time and patience in the IETF. Yes, I know
why that is hard. (I had operation smarts once; no longer.) But that
is the only way we we can get a pragmatic approach into RFC text.

Don't worry about the travel budget, because the IETF is going to
have to do much more of its work remotely for the next couple of years
anyway. But the time and patience investment is substantial.

Stay well,
   Brian Carpenter

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20200401/1effb15c/attachment-0001.html 