[111439] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David W. Hankins)
Thu Feb 5 18:59:31 2009
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:01:15 -0800
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <498B7253.1020008@brightok.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--G6nVm6DDWH/FONJq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:12:19PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> Operationally, this has been met from my experience. In fact, all of thes=
e=20
> items are handled with stateless DHCPv6 in coordination with SLAAC.=20
> Stateful DHCPv6 seems to be limited with some vendors, but unless they pl=
an=20
> to do proxy-nd, I'm not sure they'll gain much except for end system=20
> compatibility.
SLAAC fails in the end because you cannot predict what address the
client will choose.
So it fails in scenarios where enforcing network policy is important.
The point of the excercise is that DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 are both
supersets of network management needs. RA is a vast subset. Herein
lies the rub; you have to implement both anyway because a client can
not predict what network(s) it is going to be used in.
Nobody wins.
--=20
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
--G6nVm6DDWH/FONJq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmLfcsACgkQcXeLeWu2vmp7lwCcCL7evUqW9VLbggMxeeb67p5B
ixQAn2RIrY2yQ7/3s72RjIpndKBCO6ZK
=bAPN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--G6nVm6DDWH/FONJq--
