[141971] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Jun 15 01:56:59 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <11F2E1DF-F4A0-437B-A302-997A0283BACB@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:56:07 +0200
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 15 jun 2011, at 7:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Bottom line, I expect it's easier to get cooperation from OS vendors =
and BIOS vendors to make changes
> because experience has shown that they are more willing to do so than =
vertical software vendors.
> As such, yes, I'd like to see some harmless extensions added to DHCPv6 =
that solve some real world
> problems.
BTW, as long as you're making harmless changes: not putting a hard line =
end just _after_ 80 characters would make your messages easier to read.
As established before, all of this is not harmless and OS vendors (not =
sure what you're talking about with BIOS) aren't all that willing to =
make changes, at least not on short timescales.
It seems to me that the easiest solution to work around broken IPv4-only =
software isn't messing with the IPv6 protocol stack, but to create an =
IPv4 overlay on top of IPv6 that seems like a big IPv4 broadcast domain =
despite going through IPv6 routers.
Actually this would also be quite useful in hosting environments where =
it would be easy to give every IPv6 customer their own VLAN but the IPv4 =
subnets are entangled.=
