[167602] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Huff)
Fri Dec 20 09:30:05 2013
From: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>, Jamie Bowden <jamie@photon.com>, Owen DeLong
<owen@delong.com>, "ml@kenweb.org" <ml@kenweb.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:29:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CED9ADE4.3D014%Lee@asgard.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
With RA, what is the smallest interval failover will work? Compare that wit=
h NHRP such as HSRP, VRRP, etc with sub-second failover.
In corporate networks most of the non-client systems will be statically add=
ressed with privacy addresses turned off. This is for regulatory, audit, se=
curity and monitoring requirement. One of the many challenges of ipv6 in a =
corporate environment.
----
Matthew Huff=A0 | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations=A0=A0=A0| Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Howard [mailto:Lee@asgard.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:25 AM
> To: Jamie Bowden; Owen DeLong; ml@kenweb.org
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: turning on comcast v6
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 12/20/13 8:07 AM, "Jamie Bowden" <jamie@photon.com> wrote:
>=20
> >
> >
> >> "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 wron=
g
> >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.
>=20
> So there's an interesting question. You suggest there's a disagreement
> between enterprise network operators and protocol designers. Who should
> change?
>=20
> 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?"
>=20
> There are business reasons to run IPv6. The fact that it's different than
> IPv4 is not a reason not to use it.
>=20
> Lee
>=20
> >
> >Jamie
> >
>=20
>=20
