On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
Similarly, your requirement, which Iljitsch does not agree with, is that on some networks, managing what gets sent in RAs is a lot more work than managing what gets sent by the DHCP server. DHCP provides you with a central control point, whereas RAs are necessarily configured in the router.I think the opposite is true is sense of ease of management: - You have to configure router anyway to have connectivity. Adding RA parameters is rather easy.Here is where we see the difference in scale. Setting up a router with RA for one interface is easy. Doing the same for 10.000 interfaces does not scale. Doing it on the DHCP server, and letting the router do the rest "automagically", *based on information from the DHCP server", gives us the necessary scaling on the router.
You have to configure the dhcp proxy option on the same amount of interfaces.
- Setting up DHCP server and maintaining is requires extra work, however you might have tighter control which is very important in various environment.The DHCP infrastructure is already in place and ties in with other operational support systems.
Can you mention - probably offlist - one system which is integrating DHCPv4 (existing DHCP infrastructure), with DHCPv6 (infratructure under deployment). For example we are operating one DHCP for IPv4 and a different one for DHCPv6. Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi