Re: turning on comcast v6

[James R Cutler <james.cutler () consultant com>]

On Dec 31, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Ryan Harden <hardenrm () uchicago edu> wrote:

> On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > I've been in the process of rolling out IPv6 (again this night) across a
> > very large, highly conservative, and very bureaucratic enterprise. (Roughly
> > 100K employees. More than 600 distinct site. Yada. Yada.) I've had no
> > issues whatsoever implementing the IPv6 RA+DHCPv6 model alongside the IPv4
> > model. In fact, the IPv6 model has generally been much more straightforward
> > and easy to implement.
> >
> > So I'm a large enterprise operator, not an ISP. Convince me. Because I
> > don't see any need. And if I don't, I'm hard-pressed to see why the IETF
> > would.
> >
> > Scott
>
> I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue that DHCPv6+RA doesn't work. So we'd all expect that you'd do just fine 
> deploying that way for your large enterprise. The point is that there are some (And based on the thread here and over 
> at IPv6-OPS, not just a couple) operators who wish or are required to do things differently. I remember thinking how 
> stupid it was we had to either statically configure or run DHCPv6 (which a lot of clients didn't support) for the 
> sole purpose of handing out name servers, then we finally got around to RFC6106. There were lots of people who just 
> couldn't understand why you'd ever want your router handing out name servers/dns search lists. Sure DHCPv6 was/is the 
> 'right' and 'clean' way to do it, but it shouldn't be required to make IPv6 functional. Clearly the IETF agreed, 
> eventually.
>
> IMO, being able to hand out gateway information based on $criteria via DHCPv6 is a logical feature to ask for. Anyone 
> asking for that isn't trying to tell you that RA is broken, that you're doing things wrong, or that their way of 
> thinking is more important that yours. They're asking for it because they have a business need that would make their 
> deployment of IPv6 easier. Which, IMO, should be the goal of these discussions. How do we make it so deploying IPv6 
> isn't a pain in the butt? No one is asking to change the world, they're asking for the ability to manage their IPv6 
> systems the same way they do IPv4.
>
> /Ryan

Please note that Ryan’s “manage their IPv6 systems” really means “run their business”.  In many organizations the 
routing network is managed by a different group with different business goals and procedures than end systems.  
Allowing flexibility for this, if it is not overwhelmingly costly, is a reasonable goal.

On my part, I see adding a default route parameter to DHCPv6 about as earth shaking as adding a default NTP server 
list.  In other words, cut the crap and do it so we can save NANOG electrons and get on with solving more important 
network problems.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail