Interested in DHCPv6?

[Kevin Dierking]

Do you find this syntax substantially more useful, if so why?
not at the moment, but we needed an IPV6 lab with working dhcp and ddns to 
test our equipment,  being under the gun 6 month ago, and vista beta 2 was 
crashing more that running.
I'm also mystified by essentially configuring the prefix twice.
Yeah well I was going to scope the address range, then got marching orders 
to hard code it so anybody could use the lab.  I never removed the prefix, 
because everything worked for what the developers were expecting, 
basically the sequence of packet were correct. 

Since the config was working I chose not to mess with it, even if it 
looked technically wrong.





"David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins at isc.org> 
Sent by: dhcp-users-bounce at isc.org
06/30/2006 12:19 PM
Please respond to
dhcp-users at isc.org


To
dhcp-users at isc.org
cc

Subject
Re: Interested in DHCPv6?






On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:04:58AM -0500, Kevin Dierking wrote:
>         prefix 2001:1234:0:3::/64 infinity;
>         address 2001:1234:0:3::103 86400 ;

That's curious to me, I would have imagined separate config language
for lease timing and addressing (such as from a subnet {} clause or
global config parameter as we do in ISC DHCP for v4).

I'm also mystified by essentially configuring the prefix twice.

Do you find this syntax substantially more useful, if so why?

-- 
David W. Hankins                                 "If you don't do it right 
the first time,
Software Engineer                                                you'll 
just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.                                -- Jack 
T. Hankins



"This communication is for use by the intended recipient(s) only and may 
contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure or unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not an 
intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this document or 
information contained in this document is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify me by reply e-mail or 
fax, permanently delete this communication from your system, and destroy 
any hardcopies you may have printed. *This communication is covered by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521."