nanog mailing list archives
Re: [DCHPv6] was Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
From: David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:46:43 -0800 (PST)
I have a modest proposal for providing the functionality of DHCPv4 in IPv6 autoconf: How about using the mechanism in RFC 5075 to specify all of these variables as RA flags? And as long as the variables also get defined as DHCPv6 fields, perhaps we could plan on having prefix delegation include these options, which the requesting router could then turn around and include in the RAs sent out on the link toward the customer. Am I missing something? David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com --- On Thu, 12/27/07, James R. Cutler <james.cutler () consultant com> wrote:
From: James R. Cutler <james.cutler () consultant com> Subject: [DCHPv6] was Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers To: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog () merit edu> Date: Thursday, December 27, 2007, 9:37 PM And, besides the list forwarded below, Designated printers, Preferred DNS Servers, and, maybe, more. Even in a large enterprise, the ratio of "routers" to DHCP servers makes control of many end system parameters via DHCP a management win compared to configuration of "routers" with this "non-network core" data. (In case I was to abstruse, It is cheaper to maintain end system parameters in a smaller number of DHCP servers than in a larger number of "routers".) This is completely separate from the fact that many experienced router engineers are smart enough configure routers with NTP server addresses in preference to DNS names, and likewise for many other parameters. The end system population has requirements which respond much more dynamically to business requirements than do router configurations, which respond mostly to wiring configurations which are, by comparison, static. The statement that DHCP is not needed for IPv6 packet routing may well be exactly accurate. The absence of good DHCP support in IPv6 has costly consequences for enterprise management, of which IP routing is a small part. You have seen this before from me: Consider the Customer/Business Management viewpoint, not just that of routing packets around between boxes. Pull your head out of your patch panel and look at all the business requirements. If you can show me a more cost effective way to distribute all the parameters mentioned here to all end systems, I'll support it. In the meantime, don't use religious arguments to prevent me from using whatever is appropriate to manage my business. I'll even use NAT boxes, if there is no equivalently affordable stateful firewall box! Cutler Begin forwarded message:From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> Date: December 27, 2007 7:33:08 PM EST To: North American Network Operators Group<nanog () merit edu>Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased linecustomersIn a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at10:57:59PM +0100,Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:It is wih IPv6: you just connect the ethernetcable and the RAs takecare of the rest. _You_ _really_ _don't__need_ _DHCP_ _for_ _IPv6_.If you need extreme control then manualconfiguration will give youthat, which may be appropriate in some cases, suchas servers.Really. I didn't know RA's could: - Configure NTP servers for me. - Tell me where to netboot from. - Enter dynamic DNS entries in the DNS tree for me. - Tell me my domain name. - Tell me the VLAN to use for IP Telephony. Those are things I use on a regular basis I'dreally rather notmanually configure. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org,www.tmbg.org James R. Cutler james.cutler () consultant com
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Current thread:
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers, (continued)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers sthaug (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Leo Bicknell (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Christopher Morrow (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Leo Bicknell (Dec 27)
- [DCHPv6] was Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers James R. Cutler (Dec 27)
- Re: [DCHPv6] was Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers David Barak (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Marshall Eubanks (Dec 27)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 28)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 29)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Maimon (Dec 26)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 22)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Greco (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joel Jaeggli (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Greco (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joel Jaeggli (Dec 24)