Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

[Bjørn Mork]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> writes:
> On 31-Mar-20 23:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> 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.

Thanks!  Knowing history is important when trying to understand.

> Unfortunately, the purism has made it impossible to have a rational
> discussion about engineering our way out of this historical duplication.

Is there a way out?  Which doesn't involve time travel?

The obviously solution to the "too many protocols" problem is fewer
protocols.  But we cannot really remove anything, can we?  Only add.

So how do we get out of this? I vote for "accept that we have two
protocols, and stop whining".

Of course, you can do whatever you want in your home or anywhere else
where you manage both ends. And you can be arrogant and ignore one of
the protocols if you're big enough. You probably want to look up how
history has judged technical arrogance, though.

The rest of us we can live just fine with SLAAC+DHCPv6. Just remember
that it is so much better than SLAAC+DHCPv6+whatever.



Bjørn