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

[Ralph Droms]

The doc is written: draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router  Make the  
case; send text for use cases; we're happy to add authors.  Bring  
support for the doc to the IETF and get the doc adopted as aWG work  
item.

- Ralph


On May 18, 2010, at 10:03 PM 5/18/10, Michael Loftis wrote:

>
>
> --On Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:35 PM -0700 Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us 
> > wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2010 3:57 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
>>>
>>> ... but showing up after ten or more years complaining that one's
>>> existing business model isn't protected is not.
>>
>> I actually agreed with a lot of what you wrote, but here is where I  
>> take
>> exception. I actually DID say "No one is going to deploy IPv6 in an
>> enterprise network without DHCP that looks substantially like it  
>> does in
>> IPv4, and supports the same options." I was shouted down LOUDLY by  
>> the
>> autoconf religious zealots, so I went away. I had a lot of company in
>> both regards (what I said, and not bothering to keep saying it  
>> since no
>> one was listening).
>
> I also have to chime in with a "Me Too" on Doug's statements.   
> autoconf/RA doesn't even come close to solving the problems that  
> DHCP does.  They're in entirely different problem spaces, and in  
> some orgs, they're in different administrative domains.  Not having  
> a fully featured/feature parity with DHCP(v4) DHCPv6 is absolutely  
> going to hurt IPv6 deployment.  Only the most simple scenarios work  
> with the mish-mash of autoconf, RA, and ND that is being pushed for  
> IPv6.  And it's for the exact reasons mentioned, DHCP goes *beyond*  
> the connectivity bare minimums, which is VERY necessary in many  
> situations, and DHCP has been found to be a reliable, extendable,  
> scalable, and well understood method for doing this dynamic  
> configuration. Surprise....DHCP does what it's supposed to.  Having/ 
> not having full DHCPv6 should not be left to the (core) networking  
> people, because by and large they're NOT the ones that care about  
> DHCP, it's those involved with deployment, management, and  
> maintaining of workstations.
>
> I think that's the root of the issue there, too many of the people  
> who will actually be using IPv6 haven't been involved in certain  
> aspects of the process that they really needed to be heard and  
> involved in.  And partly because they don't see the problem with  
> continuing to use IPv4(+NAT/PAT).
>
>