[118505] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Thu Oct 22 16:50:17 2009
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>, sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <7a6830090910221223i7dcc04e4vbada0f9d7d1c1777@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
---- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>=0A=0A>Or is it=
that you want IPv6 to be a 128-bit version of IPv4?=A0 =0A=0A=0AYes, this =
is in fact exactly what the network operators keep saying.=A0 =0A=0A>RA is =
a=0A>good idea and it works.=A0 You can add options to DHCPv6, but I don't=
=0A>see many vendors implementing default gateway support unless you can=0A=
>make a real case for it.=0A>My fear is that your goal is to do away with R=
A completely and turn to=0A>DHCPv6 for all configuration.=A0 RA is actually=
quite nice.=A0 You really=0A>need to stop fighting it, because it's not go=
ing away.=0A=0ARA may be quite nice for some cases.=A0 However, several exa=
mples over this thread alone have been provided about some other cases wher=
e it is something other than nice.=A0 =0A=0ADHCPv4 is not a perfect protoco=
l, but it's widely deployed and understood.=A0 It also is a one-stop-shop f=
or centralized host configuration.=A0 IPv6 does not currently have a simila=
r one-stop-shop protocol, and this is a major gap in functionality.=A0=A0Th=
ere are a bunch of very large providers and enterprises which number their =
DHCP-managed end-sites in the hundreds of thousands or millions.=A0 The ina=
bility to provide the same centralized configuration management should not =
be considered a feature.=0A=0A=0ADavid Barak=0ANeed Geek Rock? Try The Fran=
chise: =0Ahttp://www.listentothefranchise.com=0A=0A=0A
