v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Mon Dec 24 06:09:52 UTC 2007
On Dec 23, 2007 8:44 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> > and trying to keep 50k machines updated with proper resolvers (in the
> > simplest example) is easier with RA than DHCP how?
> do you really mean skip RA or all of autoconf?
I think what makes sense is to use the parts of ipv6 that work well,
RA, but blend in what works already well and is folded already into
the enterprise model... dhcpv6.
> i want to explore RA(only) + DHCP, to save me from running a routing
> protocol or vsrp to have redundant exits for a LAN.
ok, somewhere there's a blend of things that will work for enterprises
and cable/dsl/mso folk. I think that some enterprises don't mind
'random address selection' while they want to pass out info required
(cause like it or not DNS is required) in a sane manner, one that's
even part of their current method.
RA/Autoconf won't work at all for some folks with deployed server
infra, all they want is a method to get a static addr on a box and
route properly. Perhaps RA gets them the 'route properly' part easily
enough but I can imagine places where that is even turned off.
Basically my rant here is that autoconf isn't enough, it's not even a
starting point for enterprise folks who rely on DHCP for all it's
bells + whistles. Taking a giant leap backwards is never going to fly
for them, so wake up and smell the cafe, dhcpv6 needs to be viable,
workable, operable, built-in and well tested.
> randy, about to go off net, heading for a rural onsen & ryokan
More information about the NANOG