On Dec 31, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Ryan Harden <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Timothy Morizot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've been in the process of rolling out IPv6 (again this night) across a >> very large, highly conservative, and very bureaucratic enterprise. (Roughly >> 100K employees. More than 600 distinct site. Yada. Yada.) I've had no >> issues whatsoever implementing the IPv6 RA+DHCPv6 model alongside the IPv4 >> model. In fact, the IPv6 model has generally been much more straightforward >> and easy to implement. >> >> So I'm a large enterprise operator, not an ISP. Convince me. Because I >> don't see any need. And if I don't, I'm hard-pressed to see why the IETF >> would. >> >> Scott > > I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue that DHCPv6+RA doesn't work. So > we'd all expect that you'd do just fine deploying that way for your large > enterprise. The point is that there are some (And based on the thread here > and over at IPv6-OPS, not just a couple) operators who wish or are required > to do things differently. I remember thinking how stupid it was we had to > either statically configure or run DHCPv6 (which a lot of clients didn't > support) for the sole purpose of handing out name servers, then we finally > got around to RFC6106. There were lots of people who just couldn't understand > why you'd ever want your router handing out name servers/dns search lists. > Sure DHCPv6 was/is the 'right' and 'clean' way to do it, but it shouldn't be > required to make IPv6 functional. Clearly the IETF agreed, eventually. > > IMO, being able to hand out gateway information based on $criteria via DHCPv6 > is a logical feature to ask for. Anyone asking for that isn't trying to tell > you that RA is broken, that you're doing things wrong, or that their way of > thinking is more important that yours. They're asking for it because they > have a business need that would make their deployment of IPv6 easier. Which, > IMO, should be the goal of these discussions. How do we make it so deploying > IPv6 isn't a pain in the butt? No one is asking to change the world, they're > asking for the ability to manage their IPv6 systems the same way they do IPv4. > > /Ryan Please note that Ryan’s “manage their IPv6 systems” really means “run their business”. In many organizations the routing network is managed by a different group with different business goals and procedures than end systems. Allowing flexibility for this, if it is not overwhelmingly costly, is a reasonable goal. On my part, I see adding a default route parameter to DHCPv6 about as earth shaking as adding a default NTP server list. In other words, cut the crap and do it so we can save NANOG electrons and get on with solving more important network problems.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
