nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:22:40 +1030
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:40:50 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com> wrote:
On 21 okt 2009, at 22:48, Owen DeLong wrote:The assumption that the router "knows" it is correct for every host on a given LAN simply does not map to reality deployed today.What I'm saying is that a router knows whether it's a router or not. A DHCP server does not, so it has to make a leap of faith and then sometimes the hosts fall flat on their face if there's no router on the address indicated by the DHCP server. The counter-argument is "it works today" but my counter-counter-argument is "it doesn't work today". I get burned by broken DHCP setups _all_ _the_ _time_ at work, at IETF meetings, at RIPE meetings, etc. Anyone claiming that having a DHCP server direct hosts to a router address in the blind is simply incompetetent, so there is no point in listening to them. If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.Please explain to me how I can achieve this functionality in RA/SLAAC or stop pushing to prevent it from being available in DHCPv6.There is no requirement that the IETF provides all functionality that someone can think up. The list of desired functionality is infinite, and much on that list is a bad idea and/or can be achieved in different ways.Seriously, we're all adults. So treating us like children and taking away the power tools is not appreciated.Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult.
Great way to shoot down your own credibility. Just because you don't have or don't understand problems other people have doesn't mean they don't have them or they're invalid. You'd be far better off proposing alternative solutions that use methods that you believe in, or looking to understand better why your methods aren't appropriate. (I don't believe in your agenda to add a prefix length option to DHCPv6 (you probably haven't run an IPX or Appletalk network, and therefore haven't experienced the convenience of fixed length subnets/node addresses), but I don't think it's appropriate to call you a child because of you naivety in this area ...)
Current thread:
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN, (continued)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN TJ (Oct 22)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Joe Maimon (Oct 22)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN TJ (Oct 22)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN David Barak (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Vasil Kolev (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN James R. Cutler (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Karl Auer (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Mark Smith (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Joe Maimon (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN bmanning (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN bmanning (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Perry Lorier (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN bmanning (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Perry Lorier (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN trejrco (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Perry Lorier (Oct 22)