need for DHCPv6 [Re: Geoff on IPv4 Exhaustion]

[Brian E Carpenter]

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.

   Brian