Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 router option

[sthaug at nethelp.no]

> There are problems with DHCP in IPv4 all the time, especially for non- 
> expert users. Having routers announce their own presence was one of  
> the things that make IPv6 more reliable than IPv4.

Given the current deployment of IPv6, I find it very hard to make any
such statement about the reliability of IPv6 vs IPv4. But that is a
different discussion.

> Throwing away that  
> feature is completely unacceptable to me, so expect unrelenting  
> opposition if that is what you intend to standardize here.

Yes, some of us really would like to operate networks without customer-
facing RAs for our DHCP customers.

> Yes, this means that you still need to have RAs in your network. In an  
> ideal world you would be able to get rid of those if you don't want  
> them. But this isn't an ideal world, and RAs don't get in the way in  
> any way that I can see, so having to live with this is more than worth  
> having the additional robustness that hosts can still talk to the rest  
> of the network if the DHCP server dies or someone fatfingers its config.

I believe this is one of the key disagreements. In my world, finding out
(and fixing) the fatfingered configuration or the dead DHCP server is far
more important than connectivity for one or a few customers.

If one customer loses connectivity, as you have suggested, then calls
in to customer support, and this helps us find and fix the problem more
quickly - this is a *good* thing, not a bad one!

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no