[141697] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jun 10 10:56:39 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <37E668D4-4EBB-4C51-9C33-1DEE1AA33BFF@muada.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:51:24 -0700
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 10 jun 2011, at 16:28, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>=20
>>> Ok, so now we've identified the problem.
>=20
>>> How exactly does adding default gateway information to DHCPv6 solve =
this problem?
>=20
>> Please go back and re-read my original scenario and think about it.
>=20
> I don't have to, as you restate pretty much all of it here...
>=20
> So we agree on the problem. Now the only thing we have to do is come =
up with a solution that everybody likes. In a greenfield situation that =
solution could be "compile DHCPv4 for 128 bits" but guess what, we have =
"legacy" IPv6 systems that aren't compatible with that, and we want =
results before those systems are all killed off.
Seems to me that adding a routing information option to DHCPv6 solves =
the problem
without breaking the legacy hosts.
What's wrong with that idea?
Owen
