[c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

Phil Mayers p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk
Thu Aug 27 04:35:54 EDT 2009

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:59:17AM +0100, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
>> > Some of us would disagree rather strongly with one or more of those
>> > points. For instance, for us DHCPv6 is a hard requirement.
>> > 
>> Why the hard requirement?  Is this for a MAC<->IP association table?  
>> I'm working on a method (might not work mind you) to make a SLAAC 
>> network forfill this requirement...I have to so we meet our upstream 
>> AUP requirements but running DHCPv6 kinda misses the point for why you 
>> try to deploy IPv6. :)
>This is an old discussion, and has been rehashed a number of times on
>various DHCP and IPv6 mailing lists. In any case:
>- SLAAC cannot distribute all the parameters that DHCP distributes to
>customers today. Example of parameters needed: DNS servers, domain
>name, NTP servers, ...
>- DHCP is tightly integrated with various operational and support 
>- DHCP lets us control customer address allocation from one central
>point, instead of having to individually configure routers.
>See also
>    http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2009-February/007535.html
>In short, a number of operators (including the one I work for) have
>concluded that SLAAC is woefully insufficient for the bulk handling of
>large number of customers (customers which use DHCPv4 today).

Very strongly agreed.

IPv6 emulated the then-state-of-the-art IPX autoconfig mechanisms, and 
seems reluctant to admit it's missed out the last decade of operational 
knowledge acquired with IPv4.

SLAAC should die the death it so richly deserves (except for link-local) 
and DHCPv6 should gain prefix advertisment capability.

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list