Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:49:21 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > Especially when some of the biggest IPv6 networks out there are still using
> > it pretty heavily.

> That's not a valid counter argument against people who
> found problems in certain environment.
>
> IPv6, as is, might work well under some environment assumed by
> IPng/IPv6 WG, a committee. The environment may be large.

> IPv6 does not work well in many environments.

Feel free to try to deprecate *everything* that doesn't work well in many
environments.  Heck, SMTP doesn't work well in many environments (it's done in
cleartext unless you deploy STARTTLS, it's subject to spamming, etc etc) - but
I don't see you leading a charge to deprecate SMTP.  Probably because you
actually use it, even though it's totally unsuitable for many environments.

It's one thing to deprecate something that's obviously a complete failure or
has reached historic status - but RA isn't either of those *yet*.

> In this case, the following statement in RFC1883:
> >   If the minimum time for rebooting the node is known (often more than
> >   6 seconds),
> is the wrong assumption which made RA annoying.

Oddly enough, a lot of us are running on networks where assuming this about end
user gear is perfectly reasonable.  We haven't seen many consumer-grade
Windows, Macs, or Linux boxes that are able to reboot in much under 6 seconds.
Yes, I know you can do it with careful tuning and throwing SSDs and other
hardware at it - doesn't mean it's common.  Most of the time, any gains made in
boot speed are immediately wiped out with "since it boots 10% faster, we can
start 10% more stuff..."

Attachment: _bin
Description: