nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:12:24 +1030
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:20:11 +1100 Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably that would not happen in a well-tended network.
IPv6 Subnets/VLANs are pretty cheap, maybe if people are having this issue, that's a sign they need to divide their hosts into more subnets/VLANs. More broadly, it seems the argument is where to put networking operational policy - in the network (via e.g. engineered topology), or on the hosts. I think there is value in putting it in the network, because it avoids having to change host located policy when the network policy changes.
In any case, anywhere this is actually of vital importance, a routing protocol would be in use. Using the DHCP protocol to deliver information - about anything really - is what it's *for*. That said, making clients depend utterly on the presence of a working DHCP server for basic connectivity seems like a backward step. Of course, different people have different ideas about what constitutes "basic" connectivity.Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult.Whoa! Tell you what, how about if I break it, and you get to choose which piece you keep? [Bash, bash, thud. Ugh. Hm. It's tougher than it looks!] :-) Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer () biplane com au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN bmanning (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Karl Auer (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN bmanning (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Karl Auer (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Nick Hilliard (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN bmanning (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Nick Hilliard (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN sthaug (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Mohacsi Janos (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Karl Auer (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Mark Smith (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Kevin Loch (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN David Conrad (Oct 22)
- RE: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Tony Hain (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN David Conrad (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Adrian Chadd (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Owen DeLong (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN sthaug (Oct 22)
- Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN Ray Soucy (Oct 22)