[167812] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan Harden)
Mon Dec 30 13:05:04 2013
From: Ryan Harden <hardenrm@uchicago.edu>
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 18:04:48 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CEDF00D7.3DAAC%Lee@asgard.org>
Cc: Jamie Bowden <jamie@photon.com>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
>> default route information via DHCPv6. That's what I'm still waiting for=
.
>=20
> Why?
> You say, "The protocol suite doesn't meet my needs; I need default gatewa=
y
> in DHCPv6." So the IETF WG must change for you to deploy IPv6. Why?
>=20
> Lee
There are many places that wish to severely restrict or even block RA. Impl=
ementations of Captive Portal/NetReg/Bump in the wire auth/etc like to do r=
edirection based on MAC. Many are doing this with very short DHCP leases th=
at hand out different name servers and/or gateways until you properly auth =
via $method. You might be able to do this with something like RADVD, but wh=
en you have systems that have been doing this for IPv4 for years, there=92s=
little interest (read: budget) in rewriting everything for IPv6.
'Rewrite all of your tools and change your long standing business practices=
=92 is a very large barrier to entry to IPv6. If adding gateway as an optio=
nal field will help people get over that barrier, why not add it? Sure it d=
oesn=92t fit into the =93IPv6 way,=94 but bean counters don=92t care much f=
or that when you have to ask for developer time to rewrite everything.=20
Disclaimer: I don=92t condone said methods and trickery mentioned above, ju=
st pointing out their use.
/Ryan=
