nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:22:04 -0800
On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
There is a reason for turning off RA and the IETF (and you) just don't seem toKevin Loch wrote:Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools wehave in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off?You don't, because there isn't really a technical reason for turning off RA. RA is used as a starting point. It can push you to DHCPv6 or any number of other options (such as SLAAC). The same argument goes for multicast versus broadcast. The idea is to add an extra level that allows for better manipulation and versatility.
get it.There are real world situations in which not all routers are created equal and it is important for the DHCP server to tell the correct host which router to use
for default.There are also a number of security issues available in the "Just trust some unsolicited broadcast about where to send all your network traffic." approach
to host bootstrapping that bother some people. We can argue all you want about how pathological these cases are, but, the fact remains that trusting some unsolicited broadcast from a deviceclaiming to be a router as your starting point isn't viable in a number of
real world installations and an alternative needs to be made available.
Of course, better support and vendor implementation of all the different options would be nice.Sure, but, so would DHCP functionality equivalent to what we have in IPv4.
If you want SLAAC or RA or whatever, more power to you. Some installations do not. They want DHCP equivalent functionality with the same security model.
Most networks have broadcast controls that are mostly vendor specific hacks. Now they'll have multicast controls, which is good to have anyways.This assumes a lot, but, even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that some
organizations like the existing DHCP model and there's no reason not to provide equivalent functionality in IPv6. Owen
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mohacsi Janos (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion sthaug (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Owen DeLong (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Greedy Routing Rod Beck (Feb 18)
- Re: Greedy Routing Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 18)
- RE: Greedy Routing Deepak Jain (Feb 18)
- RE: Greedy Routing Jake Mertel (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 18)