North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
- From: David Barak
- Date: Thu Oct 22 16:49:33 2009
---- Original Message ----
From: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
>Or is it that you want IPv6 to be a 128-bit version of IPv4?
Yes, this is in fact exactly what the network operators keep saying.
>RA is a
>good idea and it works. You can add options to DHCPv6, but I don't
>see many vendors implementing default gateway support unless you can
>make a real case for it.
>My fear is that your goal is to do away with RA completely and turn to
>DHCPv6 for all configuration. RA is actually quite nice. You really
>need to stop fighting it, because it's not going away.
RA may be quite nice for some cases. However, several examples over this thread alone have been provided about some other cases where it is something other than nice.
DHCPv4 is not a perfect protocol, but it's widely deployed and understood. It also is a one-stop-shop for centralized host configuration. IPv6 does not currently have a similar one-stop-shop protocol, and this is a major gap in functionality. There are a bunch of very large providers and enterprises which number their DHCP-managed end-sites in the hundreds of thousands or millions. The inability to provide the same centralized configuration management should not be considered a feature.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
|
