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.
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
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the NANOG