nanog mailing list archives
Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:15:58 -0700
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:31 PM, TJ wrote:
They may not be synonymous, but, there is a set of operators for whom bothThen let me say it. RA needs to be able to be completely turned off.DHCPv6 needs to be able to completely configure all requesting hosts.Those two statements are not synonymous ...
are true.
Sure, leave RA in the IPv6 stack. The market will decide, and we will see ifsay it will indeed be on by default ... we'll talk more about it then :).it is still on by default on soho routers and in IOS 15.4T in 2015.That is a more sensible statement. And were I to be a gambling man I wouldAlso, I would like to add - there is a difference between the default gateway information and other things, such as NTP|DNS|SIP server information.
Maybe.
The default gateway, by definition, is an on-link thing. IMHO, this makesthe router a good source for information about the router.
It does in some cases. In other cases, it does not.
I am not saying use cases for "fully spec'ed DHCPv6" don't exist or shouldI don't think most people are arguing that it should not be possible to configure a network for RA/SLAAC with the RA providing the gateway information. In fact, I think most of us would like to see RA/SLAAC capable of providing the otherbe ignored.Making the router capable of sharing the "missing piece" that covers ~95% ofuse cases is also a Good Thing.
needed pieces of the puzzle.That said, there is a group of operators for whom RA is a bad thing, SLAAC is
also a bad thing, and, their current usage of DHCPv4 does not map to anyexisting IPv6 technology, so, they are crying foul and want their needs addressed. I think that is 100% legitimate, regardless of whether Iljitsch thinks we are old
enough to play with power tools or not.
Thinking out loud, we could also re-create the idea of an auto-magic DNS by creating a special use case within ULA-space - say FD00::/96, saving thelast 32 bits for something like ::53 and using anycast.
That's a fine solution for part of the problem space, but, moving the router assignment function for hosts to a device controlled by the host administrator is a necessary administrative boundary issue for a number of organizations.
NOOO... If you're going to do fd00:: for this, the 123 case really should*(Could abstract same idea to any stateless and/or light-session-basedservice ... FD00::123 for Automagic ULA-based anycast NTP, etc. Need 32 bits if we don't want to hex convert the >9999 things, just in case ...)*
be fd00::7b, not fd00::123 Owen
Current thread:
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN, (continued)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN David W. Hankins (Oct 23)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Joel Jaeggli (Oct 24)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Karl Auer (Oct 24)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Mark Smith (Oct 25)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Scott Morris (Oct 25)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Matthew Petach (Oct 26)
- 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)