IPv6 Confusion

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Feb 18 15:07:39 CST 2009


In a message written on Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:00:48AM +1300, Nathan Ward wrote:
> The point I am making is that the solution is still the same -  
> filtering in ethernet devices.

No.

I agree that in some enviornments DHCPv4/DHCPv6/RA filtering are
going to be a requirement.  If I was running the NANOG network, or
a campus network for college students I would insist on such.

However, there are many enviornments where that is not a justified
expense.  At home I have a dumb, unmanaged switch which serves my
family just fine.  I'd rather like it that if I plug in an unconfigured
router to configure it for something that it not take my wife
offline.  The DHCPv4 model works great for this, there are no issues
and I don't need a managed switch.

IPv6 takes that option away from me.  My only option is an expensive
upgrade to the switch and a bunch of manual configuration.

DHCPv6 needs to be fixed before it is deployed.  Dependance on RA's
needs to be removed, and a standard option for a default route needs
to be added.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090218/0cea40ef/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list