Re: quietly....

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <09C9D1B8-F003-4932-ABC1-7299F81F1C29 () sackheads org>, John Payne writes:
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:15 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum =
> <iljitsch () muada com> wrote:
> > > On 2 feb 2011, at 17:14, Dave Israel wrote:
> > > =20
> > > > > I understand people use DHCP for lots of stuff today. But that's =
> mainly because DHCP is there, not because it's the best possible way to =
> get that particular job done.
> > > =20
> > > > So what if I want to assign different people to different resolvers =
> by policy?
> > > =20
> > > For the record: I'm not saying that DHCPv6 is never useful. DHCPv6 is =
> intended as a stateful configuration provisioning tool, i.e., to give =
> different hosts different configurations. If that's what you need then =
> DHCP fits the bill. However, in most small scale environments this is =
> not what's needed so DHCP doesn't fit the bill.
> > =20
> > There are all sized enivronments.  Political battles having partly
> > crippled DHCPv6 in ways that end up significantly limiting IPv6 uptake
> > into large enterprise organizations ... it's hard to describe how
> > frustrating this is without resorting to thrown fragile objects
> > against hard walls.  As an active consultant to medium and large
> > enterprises, this is driving me nuts.
> > =20
> > This single item is in my estimation contributing at least 6, perhaps
> > 12 months to the worldwide average delay in IPv6 uptake.  I know
> > several organizations that would have been there six months ago had
> > DHCPv6 not had this flaw.  They're currently 6-12 months from getting
> > there.
>
> Well, to be fair... In my "decent sized" enterprise, DHCPv6 and the lack =
> of default route is irritating but not the blocker.
> The second largest OS we have doesn't support DHCPv6 at all, so its not =
> like fixing the default route option is a magic bullet.

So complain to the OS vendor.  DHCPv6 should be there.  DHCPv6 is
many years old now.  It's been part of the configuration model for
a node for over a decade.

> So, we're going to have DHCP for IPv4 and SLAAC for IPv6 for now.  DNS, =
> NTP, etc will be done over IPv4 - no way around that.
>
> We have vendor struggles.  The current pain is the lack of good support =
> for VRRPv3.  RA guard is another.=20
>
> However, IPv6 on the enterprise network will continue to be seen as an =
> after thought until and unless we get parity.=
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org