[167601] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Fri Dec 20 08:25:29 2013
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:25:12 -0500
From: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
To: Jamie Bowden <jamie@photon.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,
"ml@kenweb.org" <ml@kenweb.org>
In-Reply-To: <465966A5F5B867419F604CD3E604C1E55932A93B@PRA-DCA-MAIL.pra.ray.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/20/13 8:07 AM, "Jamie Bowden" <jamie@photon.com> wrote:
>
>
>> "Parity" isn't enough information; what features are missing? RA is
>>part
>> of IPv6, but you don't have to use SLAAC.
>> I'd say it's the DHC people who need to hear it, not the IPv6 people,
>>but
>> YMMV.
>
>I have a question. Why does DHCP hand out router, net mask, broadcast
>address, etc. in IPv4; why don't we all just use RIP and be done with it?
>
>You don't have to like how enterprise networks are built, but you better
>acknowledge that they are their own animal that have their own needs and
>drivers, and telling them that the way their networks are built are wrong
>and they need to change their whole architecture, separation of service,
>security model, etc. to fit your idea of perfection isn't winning
>friends. You are, however, influencing people. Perhaps not in the
>manner you intended.
So there's an interesting question. You suggest there's a disagreement
between enterprise network operators and protocol designers. Who should
change?
I used to run an enterprise network. It was very different from an ISP
network. I didn't say, "You're wrong!" I said, "What's missing?"
There are business reasons to run IPv6. The fact that it's different than
IPv4 is not a reason not to use it.
Lee
>
>Jamie
>
