nanog mailing list archives
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:18:52 -0700
On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 15 jun 2011, at 7:33, Owen DeLong wrote:Bottom line, I expect it's easier to get cooperation from OS vendors and BIOS vendors to make changes because experience has shown that they are more willing to do so than vertical software vendors.As such, yes, I'd like to see some harmless extensions added to DHCPv6 that solve some real world problems.BTW, as long as you're making harmless changes: not putting a hard line end just _after_ 80 characters would make your messages easier to read.
OK... Line endings removed per your request.
As established before, all of this is not harmless and OS vendors (not sure what you're talking about with BIOS) aren't all that willing to make changes, at least not on short timescales.
It is harmless. Adding routing information options to DHCPv6 does not in any way harm existing implementations. Adding the ability to simultaneously request DHCP information and RA is a tiny amount of additional traffic on the network (thus also harmless). When I talk about BIOS, I'm taking into account that some DHCP implementations are in the PXE for diskless booting and installation processes, etc. Admittedly, I'm not sure how many BIOS contain IPv6 capability for this as yet anyway, but, it is an area that must eventually get implemented.
It seems to me that the easiest solution to work around broken IPv4-only software isn't messing with the IPv6 protocol stack, but to create an IPv4 overlay on top of IPv6 that seems like a big IPv4 broadcast domain despite going through IPv6 routers.
I'm not sure how you propose creating an IPv4 broadcast domain that isn't an iPv6 link. I mean the theory sounds great, but, in practice, it seems rather far-fetched.
Actually this would also be quite useful in hosting environments where it would be easy to give every IPv6 customer their own VLAN but the IPv4 subnets are entangled.
Indeed, if it were even remotely possible. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6, (continued)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Jima (Jun 15)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 16)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Mark Andrews (Jun 16)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 14)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 14)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Ricky Beam (Jun 14)
- RE: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Dave Edelman (Jun 14)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 14)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 14)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 14)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Owen DeLong (Jun 16)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 Matt Addison (Jun 14)
- Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6 William Herrin (Jun 10)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Nick Hilliard (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Ray Soucy (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent IPv6 Nick Hilliard (Jun 09)
- IPv6 routing protocols Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 10)
- Re: IPv6 routing protocols Nick Hilliard (Jun 10)
- Re: IPv6 routing protocols Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 10)
- Re: IPv6 routing protocols Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jun 10)
- Re: IPv6 routing protocols Nick Hilliard (Jun 10)