[141707] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mohacsi Janos)
Fri Jun 10 11:34:38 2011
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:32:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110610134744.GA20607@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:37:11AM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> You really didn't just write an entire post saying that RA is bad
>> because if a moron of a network engineer plugs an incorrectly
>> configured device into a production network it may cause problems, did
>> you?
>
> No, I posed the easiest way to recreate this issue.
>
> I've seen the entire NANOG and IETF lans taken out because some
> dork enabled microsoft connecting sharing to their cell card.
>
> I've seen entire corporate networks taken out because someone ran
> the patch cable to the wrong port.
>
> The point is, RA's are operationally fragile and DHCP is operationally
> robust. You can choose to stick your head in the sand about that
> if you want, but it's still true.
I don't see, why do you claim that DHCP is more robust, than SLAAC.
I have seen half day outage due to broken/misbehaving DHCP server....
I agree with Wiliam Herrin: have both SLAAC and DHCPv6 as an option. Give
me both ways....And probably I will use both...
Janos Mohacsi
Head of HBONE+ project
Network Engineer, Deputy Director of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882
