[112042] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Wed Feb 18 16:08:02 2009
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:07:39 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A0C60E7-235A-4EFE-B619-02022CAAFA72@daork.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:00:48AM +1300, Nathan Ward =
wrote:
> The point I am making is that the solution is still the same - =20
> filtering in ethernet devices.
No.
I agree that in some enviornments DHCPv4/DHCPv6/RA filtering are
going to be a requirement. If I was running the NANOG network, or
a campus network for college students I would insist on such.
However, there are many enviornments where that is not a justified
expense. At home I have a dumb, unmanaged switch which serves my
family just fine. I'd rather like it that if I plug in an unconfigured
router to configure it for something that it not take my wife
offline. The DHCPv4 model works great for this, there are no issues
and I don't need a managed switch.
IPv6 takes that option away from me. My only option is an expensive
upgrade to the switch and a bunch of manual configuration.
DHCPv6 needs to be fixed before it is deployed. Dependance on RA's
needs to be removed, and a standard option for a default route needs
to be added.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFJnHiSNh6mMG5yMTYRAmGVAJ45YIeXotzwmYc+UWVrdeE0Iju09ACghZp5
Ix1+DV6Qe5n8RlOjYmFnk+8=
=BwXC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE--
