RA & DHCP problem...

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:27:13 +0100, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
<snip>
> So - again AIUI - the argument is mostly the usual "DHCPv6 is more 
> suited
> to this network than RAs". This is true, but there are other networks 
> where
> RAs are a better fit than DHCPv6. The question has always been 
> whether we
> should completely duplicate routing configuration functionality into
> DHCPv6, and add support for that into clients, and the answer has
> repeatedly been that there is no consensus to do so.

No consensus because there has _always_ been a group of people that 
shoot
down any idea that move in any direction where RAs are not the sole 
provider
of defaultroute.

I know, I've always been against the idea but well, it's sickening how 
stuck
we've all gone in this train of thought right now.



What is wrong with having a _choice_ if you want to ha RAs+OTHER just
OTHER? Right now it's DHCPv6 that are OTHER, but someone mention 
dibbler
here in another mail?



---

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen      | - ROJO9-RIPE
roger at jorgensen.no   | - The Future is IPv6
-------------------------------------------------------

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?