[147781] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mos)
Wed Dec 21 16:32:52 2011
From: Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4EF23092.9090103@cis.vutbr.cz>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:31:35 +0100
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
Op 21 dec 2011, om 20:16 heeft Tomas Podermanski het volgende =
geschreven:
> Hi,
>=20
> from my perspective the short answer for this never-ending story is:
To be fair, SLAAC was designed as a light weight method to configure =
addressing on the hosts.
Hosts. We don't have hosts on the internet anymore, we stopped using =
dialup ages ago (or so it seems). We now address routers, and those have =
very different requirements, like needing routing and firewalling and =
some way to get subnets routed to them, that is where dhcp6 prefix =
delegation comes in. SLAAC serves no purpose for routers bar making the =
configure process awkward and error prone.
That wasn't what we needed.
I recently had a conversation with a promoter of the SLAAC method.
"A 64KB ram device can configure a address and work as a autonomous =
sensor".
I raised the concern that the device might need to connect to a host, =
since you couldn't find it in a /64 of address space. He honestly =
suggested that you could just configure to have it connect to a static =
address.
Really, and nobody renumbers networks, at all? That's false.
And that is still a host, not a router.
And since then we've come a lot farther then 64KB sensor devices. =
Considering we can buy (wireless) routers at the local mall that have =
more ram and processing power then we used to have in a computer in the =
90s now in a tablet, phone or other embedded device.
Having built DHCP6 support in a open source firewall I agree that the =
(+IPv6) configuration of routers has become overly complicated and error =
prone, even more so due to possible renumbering. RA will have one =
thought, and the DHCP6 client another, not even going into multiple =
(possible differing) feeds of both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers.
It was intended for hosts, not really minding that, but please, can we =
stop using it for routers?
Regards,
Seth
