Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[indrules at aol.com]

Unsubscribe 

> On Mar 31, 2020, at 5:34 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
> 
> 
>