On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:20:11 +1100 Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably that would not happen in a well-tended network.
IPv6 Subnets/VLANs are pretty cheap, maybe if people are having this issue, that's a sign they need to divide their hosts into more subnets/VLANs. More broadly, it seems the argument is where to put networking operational policy - in the network (via e.g. engineered topology), or on the hosts. I think there is value in putting it in the network, because it avoids having to change host located policy when the network policy changes.
In any case, anywhere this is actually of vital importance, a routing protocol would be in use.
Using the DHCP protocol to deliver information - about anything really - is what it's *for*. That said, making clients depend utterly on the presence of a working DHCP server for basic connectivity seems like a backward step. Of course, different people have different ideas about what constitutes "basic" connectivity.
Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult.
Whoa! Tell you what, how about if I break it, and you get to choose which piece you keep? [Bash, bash, thud. Ugh. Hm. It's tougher than it looks!]
:-)
Regards, K.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)
GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF