[141710] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Fri Jun 10 11:50:38 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110610152629.GA26942@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:49:51 +0200
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10 jun 2011, at 17:26, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> 1. No longer the fait sharing that comes from RA-learned gateway =
addresses
> I proport that VRRPv6 is a superior solution to have redundant
> gateways than using RA's to broadcast both and let the host choose.
It's not about redundancy, it's about misconfiguration. You can't =
misconfigure an RA to provide the wrong gateway address because the =
gateway address is the source address of the packet.
> My guess is that most networks that use DHCPv6 will disable RA's
> completely on the routers.
Haven't you been paying attention?
One of my main points is that you can't do that for many years to come, =
becasue CURRENT hosts require them. It took us 8 years to get from the =
publication of the DHCPv6 RFC to the deployment of DHCPv6 in all big =
operating systems. What's the point of doing all kinds of stuff now just =
so you can turn off RAs in 2019? By that time the switches will have all =
the necessary options so the problem is moot.
> I'm going to assume operators aren't going to do such stupid things.
Not sure what universe you live in. In mine, if you give people a way to =
misconfigure, a good number of them will do so. And a small but vocal =
group will defend their misconfiguration and claim that this is really =
the best way to run their network, all the while complaining to their =
vendors and the IETF about the problems that this creates and that those =
need to be solved.=
