From: Ray Soucy (no email)
Date: Wed Oct 21 2009 - 16:45:21 EDT
What we have now is not a mess. What we have is a solid base to build
on. The problem is in education, the fact that both stateless and
stateful configuration are valid components to IPv6 for example, and
proper implementation by vendors.
There are a few challenges with IPv6 that need to be worked out, like
RA-gaurd and DHCPv6 snooping, for example, but the core of IPv6 was
generally done right.
Reading this thread can get rather frustrating, what I've gotten out
of the most recent exchange is that the combined suggestion is to add
DNS to RA, and to add gateway information to DHCPv6. Well, DHCPv6
already handles DNS quite nicely (and DHCPv6 is about more than just
DNS mind you), and RA does a perfect job handling gateway selection.
I would love to understand how you feel that the roles of RA and
DHCPv6 should be swapped.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> On 21 okt 2009, at 22:23, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> What we need is a thing that gives us what we need to
>>> connect to the network (addresses, DNS servers) and then a pointer in
>>> the form of an HTTP or HTTPS URL for all other configuration.
>> You want to invent yet _another_ form of configuration management?
> Short answer: no, life is too short and I have other problems that need
> Long answer: what we have now is a mess, if we want to clean up the mess we
> have to get it right, and putting new options in binary protocols is not
> right in any way, shape or form.
-- Ray Soucy Communications Specialist +1 (207) 561-3526 Communications and Network Services University of Maine System http://www.maine.edu/