[167828] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 30 16:52:50 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <595B1A61-2198-44E9-91EB-827C7091EA9F@uchicago.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 13:49:29 -0800
To: Ryan Harden <hardenrm@uchicago.edu>
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 30, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Ryan Harden <hardenrm@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
>=20
>>> 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 =
gateway
>> in DHCPv6." So the IETF WG must change for you to deploy IPv6. Why?
>>=20
>> Lee
>=20
> There are many places that wish to severely restrict or even block RA. =
Implementations of Captive Portal/NetReg/Bump in the wire auth/etc like =
to do redirection based on MAC. Many are doing this with very short DHCP =
leases that 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 when you have systems that have been doing this for IPv4 =
for years, there=92s little interest (read: budget) in rewriting =
everything for IPv6.
>=20
While I do not oppose the inclusion of Routing Information into DHCPv6, =
I have to say that this seems to be one of the weaker arguments.
Please permit me to repeat your statement from an IPv6 perspective=85
Because many places have poorly thought out cruft that deals with =
deficiencies in IPv4 by doing stunts that won=92t work in the current =
IPv6 implementation and because we don=92t want to rewrite our cruft to =
take advantage of the cleaner solutions available for these problems in =
IPv6, we demand that you include the cruft from IPv4 into IPv6 in order =
to support this hackery.
> '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 optional field will help people get over that barrier, why not add =
it? Sure it doesn=92t fit into the =93IPv6 way,=94 but bean counters =
don=92t care much for that when you have to ask for developer time to =
rewrite everything.=20
You have to rewrite all your tools to handle the bigger addresses =
anyway. While you=92re at it, why not rewrite them to take advantage of =
cleaner solutions?
> Disclaimer: I don=92t condone said methods and trickery mentioned =
above, just pointing out their use.
So you=92re defending a position you don=92t share? Interesting tactic.
Owen
