nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:24:07 -0800
On Dec 24, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
I think the point is that RA and VRRPv6 are not designed to depend on eachIljitsch van Beijnum wrote:On 24 dec 2007, at 20:00, Kevin Loch wrote:That's just IPv4 uptightness. As long as you don't change your MAC address you'll get the same IPv6 address every time, this works fine for servers unless you need a memorable address. BTW, I don't know anyone who uses DHCP for their servers.RA/Autoconf won't work at all for some folks with deployed server infra,With router advertisements present you don't need VRRP because you have dead neighbor detection.Hopefully vrrpv6 will work with RA turned completely off.And that helps the hosts on the same l2 segment that need different gateways how? Or hosts with access to multiple l2 segments with different gateways?
other in any way.While you can certainly run both on any given segment, it is hard to imagine
many cases where one would want to do so.In places where all you need is to know a valid gateway that can do the right thing with your packets, RA is probably the right solution. This, generally, turns out to be the vast majority of LAN segments. Clearly, RA is intended
only for scenarios where a gateway is a gateway is a gateway.In places where you need tighter control over the usage of various gateways
on a common L2 segment, VRRP probably makes more sense. However,as things currently stand, that means static routing configuration on the host
since for reasons passing understanding, DHCP6 specifically won't do gateway assignment.I don't know the state of the current VRRP6 draft or protocol, but, I can't imagine what would be left in VRRP6 if it couldn't be statically configured without RA. If that's the case, then, what would it possibly do, exactly, that
would be different from RA without VRRP? Owen
Current thread:
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers, (continued)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joel Jaeggli (Dec 22)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Randy Bush (Dec 22)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers sthaug (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Christopher Morrow (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Randy Bush (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Christopher Morrow (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Kevin Loch (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Kevin Loch (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers sthaug (Dec 25)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Stephen Sprunk (Dec 25)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 25)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Leo Bicknell (Dec 26)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Florian Weimer (Dec 26)
- Message not available
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Florian Weimer (Dec 26)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Tony Li (Dec 26)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 26)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Leo Bicknell (Dec 26)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 27)