[167608] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Dec 20 15:28:30 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <483E6B0272B0284BA86D7596C40D29F902212D9D4ECC@PUR-EXCH07.ox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:23:10 -0800
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 20, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
> With RA, what is the smallest interval failover will work? Compare =
that with NHRP such as HSRP, VRRP, etc with sub-second failover.
RA and VRRP are not mutually exclusive. What you can=92t have =
(currently) is routing information distributed by a DHCP server which =
may or may not actually know anything about the routing environment to =
which it is sending such information.
> In corporate networks most of the non-client systems will be =
statically addressed with privacy addresses turned off. This is for =
regulatory, audit, security and monitoring requirement. One of the many =
challenges of ipv6 in a corporate environment.
There=92s no problem doing this in IPv6. You can easily statically =
address a system and you can easily turn off privacy addresses. You can =
even do that and still get your default router via RA or you can =
statically configure the default router address.
As such, can someone please explain what is the actual missing or =
problematic requirement for the corporate world?
Owen
>=20
>=20
> ----
> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577
> OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039
>=20
>> -----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
>>>=20
>>>=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.
>>>=20
>>> 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?
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=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
>>>=20
>>> Jamie
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
