[167932] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Jan 1 02:02:36 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <B639B9B7-5E29-48BB-8717-95503A6B5FCD@consultant.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 22:57:26 -0800
To: James R Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> Please note that Ryan=92s =93manage their IPv6 systems=94 really means =
=93run their business=94. In many organizations the routing network is =
managed by a different group with different business goals and =
procedures than end systems. Allowing flexibility for this, if it is =
not overwhelmingly costly, is a reasonable goal.
>=20
I guess in that case, one must ask one's self whether setting the =
default (or any other) route entries in the host routing tables =
qualifies as a "end system" issue or a "routing network" issue. My =
inclination is to think that it really is a "routing network" issue more =
than a "end system" issue, but I can see some valid arguments in either =
direction.
It seems to me that no matter what solution one uses to deliver the =
default route information to the end system's routing table, this is an =
area which will inherently require cooperation and interaction between =
the group that manages the end systems and the group that manages the =
routers. I have yet to see an environment where this can be avoided in =
IPv4 and I wouldn't expect it to work out particularly well in IPv6, =
though I think we can come closer to having it work by having the =
network group control the prefix assignment and routing information =
delivered to the hosts than we could otherwise.
> On my part, I see adding a default route parameter to DHCPv6 about as =
earth shaking as adding a default NTP server list. In other words, cut =
the crap and do it so we can save NANOG electrons and get on with =
solving more important network problems.
Personally, I'd hate to see us waste the effort on such a half-assed =
measure. If we're going to add routing information to DHCPv6, then I =
think it should be roughly equivalent to what is contained in an RIO =
within an RA (Prefix, Mask, Next Hop, Metric).
(Though in the case of RA, the Next Hop is implicitly the router =
providing the RIO, obviously in DHCPv6, it would have to be explicit)
With such an option added to DHCPv6, then default router could simply be =
one case, but the flexibility for more complex routing situations to be =
addressed would also exist.
Owen
