[101416] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jamie Bowden)
Thu Jan 3 10:25:55 2008
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:21:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20071227135113.GA74876@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
From: "Jamie Bowden" <jamie@photon.com>
To: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell@ufp.org>,
"North American Network Operators Group" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Leo Bicknell
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:51 AM
To: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
In a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 11:27:13AM +0100, Iljitsch
van Beijnum wrote:
> 100% of the DHCP functionality). But apart from that, some of the =20
> choices made along the way make DHCPv6 a lot harder to use than DHCP =20
> for IPv4. Not only do you lack a default gateway (which is actually a
> good thing for fate sharing reasons) but also a subnet prefix length =20
> and any extra on-link prefixes. So even if you do address =20
> configuration with DHCPv6 you need RAs for that other information. =20
I would note, it's not too late to fix these problems. We don't
have wide spread IPv6 deployment yet, and I can't imagine it's all
that hard to send a default gateway in DHCPv6, for example.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Someone earlier threw out an offhand 'preferred gateway' DHCPv6
parameter as a possibility. This is actually a nifty idea...
"Hey, you there, use potential gateways in the following order!"
It has the same utility and simplicity that MX records do.
Jamie
