[118468] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Auer)
Thu Oct 22 08:10:24 2009
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20091022113019.GG32008@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:09:25 +1100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--=-8iHMqitOZsZYlGyvosnU
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:30 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > But my question was not about IPv6. How do IPv4 routers operate in such
> > a situation?
> exchange design 101.
Thanks :-)
I was being a bit Socratic. In the IPv4 world, routers in such complex
environments are generally manually configured. In other situations they
might use a routing protocol. Turning off RA in a similar environment
with IPv6 is no loss over IPv6.
My point (several messages ago,now) was in regard to DHCP information
being used to send preferred route information; seems to me that in a
situation where RA preference levels are not cutting it, a DHCP server
sending discrimination information is probably not going to cut it
either.
Regards, K.
--=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)
GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
--=-8iHMqitOZsZYlGyvosnU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAkrgS3UACgkQSkRqA/Q6fe/W1wCeJKDvZn/jGkxQkc3NPa1nUsXJ
TAMAoOj5oi9BkPkwr0YSiT3XzKi8BzUu
=SN7G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-8iHMqitOZsZYlGyvosnU--
