[136264] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Feb 2 00:02:37 2011
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:02:16 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D48D4BA.5010005@otd.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/1/2011 9:51 PM, Dave Israel wrote:
> They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and
> purists, and opposed by operators.
You mean like the lack of Default Router in DHCPv6?
Don't get me wrong. I love RA. However, it is NOT a universal tool, and
there are cases where Default Router via DHCPv6 would be more
appropriate and easier to manage.
Case in point. If I hand out IA_NA or IA_TA to directly connected DSL
hosts or CPEs, I have no need of RA. In addition, the load on my router
is increased by having to send RA to 3000+ interfaces, something that
is absolutely not necessary in my deployment. I would even go as far to
say that Default Router would be a good stateless option to hand out
along with the DNS servers when customers do SLAAC with me.
I have also now seen 2 different vendor DSL modems which when not using
PPPoE require a manually entered default router (ie, no RA support).
Jack
