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

[sthaug at nethelp.no]

> > 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 
systems.

- 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).

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no