[167891] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan Harden)
Tue Dec 31 13:11:44 2013
From: Ryan Harden <hardenrm@uchicago.edu>
To: Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:11:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAFy81rk-eX--ny4a80tK3sHoR9Zc+2sxRH9=nXskqxcVOD1kPA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_B1C2E9CD-6BA5-460D-82A2-FFF9D1283B19
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been in the process of rolling out IPv6 (again this night) across =
a
> very large, highly conservative, and very bureaucratic enterprise. =
(Roughly
> 100K employees. More than 600 distinct site. Yada. Yada.) I've had no
> issues whatsoever implementing the IPv6 RA+DHCPv6 model alongside the =
IPv4
> model. In fact, the IPv6 model has generally been much more =
straightforward
> and easy to implement.
>=20
> So I'm a large enterprise operator, not an ISP. Convince me. Because I
> don't see any need. And if I don't, I'm hard-pressed to see why the =
IETF
> would.
>=20
> Scott
I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue that DHCPv6+RA doesn't work. =
So we'd all expect that you'd do just fine deploying that way for your =
large enterprise. The point is that there are some (And based on the =
thread here and over at IPv6-OPS, not just a couple) operators who wish =
or are required to do things differently. I remember thinking how stupid =
it was we had to either statically configure or run DHCPv6 (which a lot =
of clients didn't support) for the sole purpose of handing out name =
servers, then we finally got around to RFC6106. There were lots of =
people who just couldn't understand why you'd ever want your router =
handing out name servers/dns search lists. Sure DHCPv6 was/is the =
'right' and 'clean' way to do it, but it shouldn't be required to make =
IPv6 functional. Clearly the IETF agreed, eventually.
IMO, being able to hand out gateway information based on $criteria via =
DHCPv6 is a logical feature to ask for. Anyone asking for that isn't =
trying to tell you that RA is broken, that you're doing things wrong, or =
that their way of thinking is more important that yours. They're asking =
for it because they have a business need that would make their =
deployment of IPv6 easier. Which, IMO, should be the goal of these =
discussions. How do we make it so deploying IPv6 isn't a pain in the =
butt? No one is asking to change the world, they're asking for the =
ability to manage their IPv6 systems the same way they do IPv4.
/Ryan
--Apple-Mail=_B1C2E9CD-6BA5-460D-82A2-FFF9D1283B19
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlLDCMQACgkQtuPckBBbXbqcGQCfRE7u38893UnmgzK05ecusD+A
aXEAoKvANjYOib7UbMnRu7Cejg0aWKrJ
=pr+P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_B1C2E9CD-6BA5-460D-82A2-FFF9D1283B19--
