Masataka, On 6/1/13 6:51 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > >> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the >> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for >> "dumb" devices that only need to know their network and gateway to be >> happy. > > Wrong. > > Even at that time and even on small end user LANs, it is > better to let the gateway manage the address configuration > state in centralized fashion than to have, so called, SLAAC, > which is full of address configuration state, which is > maintained in fully distributed manner involving all the nodes. > > Masataka Ohta > YMMV. I was working on TCP/IP, Novell and AppleTalk nets in the mid 90s and as network engineers we hated to maintain a database of static IP addresses for users, and we loved how AT for example was totally automatic (IPX was in the middle because we also hated the long addresses). But any how, I agree with Brian that it was a good idea at that time. I was very young and naive (I am still naive) then but I remember that I thought that it was a plus compared to v4, but probably I would the same applauded an automatic centric IP address management (i.e. dhcp). In fact, as an operator I wanted a mechanism to handle IP address easily, not to use the mac address and avoid ARP. I guess this backs Randy's point too. Best regards, as