[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: simpler prefix delegation




>  - implementation complexity (how many lines of code, any particularly
> difficult issues, etc.) -- DHCPv6: dozens? of thousands
I don't see how this has a practical impact especially in terms of 
configuration. In all the implementations of DHCPv6 that I encountered, 
DHCPv6 PD is trivial to set up and to maintain.

Concerning RFC3315: I know people who implemented DHCPv6 and the 
essence of what they told me about the RFC is that, though it is quite 
a long document, it is indeed very comprehensive, sound, complete and 
it hardly poses any open questions.

>  - requirements from the system (how does the mechanism interface with
> the routers, access databases, etc. -- e.g., do you need to have v6
> support in RADIUS databases, do you need to have customer information
> stored there, how is that communicated to the router or the DHCPv6
> server): It appears as if DHCPv6 has non-trivial set-up complexity.
I disagree. Especially upcoming commercial DHCPv6 implementations will 
have a stress on easy maintenance and interoperability with external 
customer data sources like databases. And if this infrastructure is 
present, I can only see advantages in the use of DHCPv6.

> Well, I think we're discussing a very fundamental issue; it's IMHO
> much more non-sensical to invent new protocols just because we can.
True. This is why I think we should stick to DHCPv6 for PD.

> the simpler setups where the complexity is unnecessary and redundant.
> In such scenarios, DHCPv6 is more likely than not even used (e.g.,
> with IPv6-over-IPv4 configured tunnels) -- and should not be required
> (IMHO, of course).
As said before, DHCPv6 for PD is so trivial to configure that I don't 
see a point in trying to cook up an "easier" solution.

It is important to make sure which point of view we're talking about. 
To a certain extent, DHCPv6 might not make sense for smaller networks 
(maybe some 30 nodes that connect). But I have no doubt that for bigger 
networks it definitely presents quite a benefit. So from an enterprise 
point of view, I don't think anything else than DHCPv6 for PD makes 
sense. On the contrary, most enterprise site will most likely deploy 
DHCPv6 anyhow, so maintaining an additional mechanisms would create 
administrative overhead.

Christian
--
JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN  Christian Strauf
A DFN project                   Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität 
Münster
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung
Team: join@uni-muenster.de      Röntgenstrasse 9-13
Priv: strauf@uni-muenster.de    D-48149 Münster / Germany
GPG-/PGP-Key-ID: 1DFAAA9A       Fon: +49 251 83 31639, Fax: +49 251 83 
31653


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------