Mysterious missing DHCPv6 feature, was Re: How does one obtain an IPv6 DNS server when VPNing to an ASA?

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:04:48AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> >	actually the Default Gateway option was - for me - a side effect.
> >	I wanted DNS servers.  having ripped off the covers,  finding
> >	the code being driven the way it was, I tossed in the proverbial
> >	towel and re-wrote it the way I wanted it.  One DHCP, address 
> >	agnostic.
> >	All defined DHCP options (should) work with anything that is suported
> >	by the newer APIs.  If some brave/foolhardy souls want to take up
> >	the torch and get such an idea standardised, go for it.
> 
> Why do you want a single protocol? Should the transport for this be either 
> IPv4 or IPv6? I kind of see the logic that DHCP for v4 is carried over 
> IPv4, and DHCPv6 is carried over IPv6, and keep them separate. I'm not 
> really a fan of mixing things too much, sounds like a complication?

	why do you want multiples? transport is what works.

> 
> Should IPv4 information be obtained using an IPv6 transport also?


	why not?  the transport used to deliver the datagrams is
	or should be agnostic of the content of those datagrams.

	as far as I can tell, we could use DECNET PhaseV as the 
	transport for DHCP and push IPv4 and IPv6 configuration data
	over DECNET.

	anyway - I've said my piece.  i did what i did, it works for me
	and i'm not asking any one to agree with me. i hope it was clear
	enough for Shane, who asked.  if not, lets take this off list.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se

--bill