Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

[Ray Soucy <rps () maine edu>]

> This to me is one of the least credible claims of the RA/SLAAC crowd.
> On the one hand we have carriers around the world with millions and
> millions of customers getting default routes and other config through
> DHCPv4 every day. And most of the time it actually works very well!
>
> On the other hand we have RA/SLAAC with a vastly smaller customer
> base, vastly less real life testing - but which is still claimed to
> be so much better that DHCPv6 is not *allowed* to get a default route
> option.

If the argument against RA being used to provide gateway information
is "rogue RA," then announcing gateway information though the use of
DHCPv6 doesn't solve anything.  Sure you'll get around rogue RA, but
you'll still have to deal with rogue DHCPv6.  So what is gained?

I guess I'm not really seeing the case here.  Are people really making
use of DHCP to provide hosts on the same network with different
default gateway information?  If so, why?

Or is it that you want IPv6 to be a 128-bit version of IPv4?  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.

-- 

Ray Soucy
Communications Specialist

+1 (207) 561-3526

Communications and Network Services

University of Maine System
http://www.maine.edu/