[152266] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Automatic IPv6 due to broadcast
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Grant Ridder)
Mon Apr 23 00:58:00 2012
In-Reply-To: <4F94DB44.6030703@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:57:28 -0500
From: Grant Ridder <shortdudey123@gmail.com>
To: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>, carlos@lacnic.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Most switches nowadays have dhcpv4 detection that can be enabled for port
ranges. Not sure about v6.
-Grant
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/12 01:37 , Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> > I don't understand why a problem with a tunnel 'leaves a bad taste with
> > IPv6'. Since when a badly configured DNS zone left people with a 'bad
> > taste for DNS', or a badly configured switch left people with 'a bad
> > taste for spanning tree' or 'a bad taste for vlan trunking' ?
> >
> > It seems to me that what are perceived as operational mistakes and/or
> > plain lack of knowledge for some technologies is perceived as a fault of
> > the protocol itself in the case of IPv6.
>
> rogue dhcp servers are sufficiently common that tools had to be
> developed to address their existence and they're still a nuisance after
> all that.
>
> > People need to get their acts together.
>
> indeed.
>
>
