[118290] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Sun Oct 18 13:29:01 2009
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: "'NANOG'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4ADB3812.6050805@kl.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:29:54 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> In some cases different devices on a segment need a different
> default router (for default). This is the fundamental
This capability is also defined, "more specific routes" - but no one
encouraged any vendors that I know of to support it - so they don't. Big
demand?
> problem with RA's, they shotgun the entire segment.
As opposed to a standard deployment, where the DHCP server provides the same
information to every host on that link ... ???
> What would be useful would be having the option to give a default
> router to a dhcpv6 client, and having vrrpv6 work without RA's.
These are separate problems.
Host configuration vs. first-hop redundancy, and we can solve them
independently.
> Why can't we have those options in our toolbox in addition to
> this continuously evolving RA+hacks?
You say hacks, others see it as relatively-speaking simple additions of more
functionality.
You can define any options you want for DHCPv6, write a draft and get
community support.
I don't see how that ("continuously evolving DHCPv6 hacks") is any better
than what is happening with RAs?
I, for one, am just fine with RAs being the first step - leading to either
SLAAC or (some mode of) DHCPv6 ...
/TJ
