nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet () consulintel es>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:39:12 +0200
I don't really agree 100%. There is DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation, and it just works ! Regards, Jordi
De: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com> Responder a: <owner-nanog () merit edu> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:46:47 +0200 Para: Donald Stahl <don () calis blacksun org> CC: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>, Randy Bush <randy () psg com>, Martin Hannigan <hannigan () gmail com>, <nanog () nanog org> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted On 29-mei-2007, at 3:35, Donald Stahl wrote:Actually setting up a dual-stack infrastructure isn't very difficult- anyone who has done so would probably agree. The problems (as has already been pointed out) come from management, billing and the like.I don't know what kinds of weird management and billing systems are out there, so I won't say that's not relevant, but the most difficult part about IPv6 deployment today is provisioning, in my opinion. If you as a service provider have a router and a customer has a host (or more than one for either) then you can do stateless autoconfig and life is good. However, when the customer has a router then there is no way to make that work automatically without manual configuration similar to what you get now with a CPE that receives a single IPv4 address over PPP or DHCP on the WAN side and does NAT on the LAN side. Then there is the DNS issue: since you can't predict what addresses your customer's machines are going to have, you can't pre-populate the DNS. DHCP for IPv6 is largely missing in action so that's not a 100% solution. It is possible to have clients register their addresses in the DNS using dynamic DNS updates, but that's not all that widely supported either and either you have no security or you have confused customers. But you can always delegate the reverse DNS to the customer and make it their problem. :-)Testing now with a small group of technically competent people would seem to be a better idea than waiting until IPv6 is already widely deployed and then trying to test a rollout.# traceroute6 www.nanog.org traceroute6: hostname nor servname provided, or not known That would be a start... It took years to get the IETF to eat its own dog food, though.
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch (May 27)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Randy Bush (May 27)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (May 28)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 28)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Donald Stahl (May 28)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jared Mauch (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Kevin Loch (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted matthew zeier (May 28)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted matthew zeier (May 28)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Larry J. Blunk (May 31)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jeroen Massar (May 31)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Chris L. Morrow (May 31)
- Re: Content provider plans Michal Krsek (May 30)
- Re: Content provider plans Sean Donelan (May 30)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Jeroen Massar (May 29)
- RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Adrian Chadd (May 29)