[186488] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sander Steffann)
Sat Dec 19 14:21:39 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5675831A.4050300@foobar.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 20:21:28 +0100
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Nick,
> Unfortunately, this turned into a religious war a long time ago and the
> primary consideration with regard to dhcpv6 has not been what's best for
> ipv6 or ipv6 users or ipv6 operators, but ensuring that dhcpv6 is
> sufficiently crippled as a protocol that it cannot be deployed without
> RA due to lack of features.
As a network operator what I'm afraid of is the exact opposite: DHCP duplica=
ting everything that RA does so that I now have duplicate and possibly confl=
icting sources of information. I already have to put DNS resolvers in both b=
ecause some operating systems only use the ones provided in the RA and other=
s only use those from DHCP. I can'd even begin to imagine the mess if e.g. r=
outing information is also duplicated, with different operating systems usin=
g different sources.
I don't really care about the solution itself. I don't mind the original sit=
uation where routing stuff is done in RA and the rest is done in DHCP. I wou=
ldn't have minded if everything was in RA, or everything was in DHCP. But th=
e worst choice would be conflicting or overlapping solutions with some peopl=
e religiously only implementing one of them.
There are always trade-offs. And some stupid design decisions were made in t=
he past. But let's not create an even bigger mess...
Cheers,
Sander
