On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
What is wrong with having something else than our _current_ RAs to provide defaultgateway on a network if the operator wish so? Let that be DHCPv6 or dibbler?
Because the current method is known to work and you haven't given convincing arguments why it doesn't or why doing what you want is superior enough to warrant having two (or more) ways to do this?
When I first looked into IPv6 I was of your opinion, why not do it the same way it's done in IPv4. Then I got over it. Operationally, I don't see having default gateway in DHCPv6 as something that makes much sense, apart from the fact that it means people have to learn less to start using IPv6, which I don't consider a valid use-case.
For me, RA/RS/ND is all one single thing, you can't make IPv6 function without ND, so there is little reason to try to avoid the RA/RS machinery.
A more valid use-case would be if you were propagating for new functionality and said that this would be easier to implement in DHCPv6 than in ND, and then you would get default-gw for free. That is the path I would choose. Unfortunately, the use-case that comes to mind (having routers that shouldn't have ::/0 pointed to them) is already implemented in by means of RIO in RAs. There is just very little deployed support for it as far as I know.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
