[186468] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sander Steffann)
Sat Dec 19 09:03:27 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20151219002105.GB58695@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:03:18 +0100
To: Matthew Newton <mcn4@leicester.ac.uk>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Matthew,
> The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements
> from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning
> addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's
> just confusing and unnecessary and IMHO isn't helpful for
> persuading people to move to IPv6. Especially when everyone
> already understands DHCP in the v4 world.
>=20
> Both RAs and DHCP have their place and can be really useful
> together or apart in different situations, but witholding key
> functionality from DHCP "beacuse you can do it in a RA instead"
> isn't helping the v6 cause.
Have you ever tried to deploy IPv6 (even if only in a lab environment)? =
I have worked with several companies (ISP and enterprise) and once they =
stop thinking "I want to do everything in IPv6 in exactly the same way =
as I have always done in IPv4" and actually look at the features that =
IPv6 provides them they are usually much happier with IPv6 than they =
were with IPv4.
I am sure that a century ago people who were used to horse and buggy =
transport thought that cars were annoyingly complex and that having to =
put petrol in instead of hay was a huge problem. But I am very glad that =
in the end they adapted instead of convincing other people to make cars =
run on hay ;)
Just joking of course, but seriously: we need to look at what the best =
solution for the future is, not at ways of avoiding having to learn =
something new/different.
Cheers,
Sander
