[DCHPv6] was Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
thegameiam at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 28 03:46:43 UTC 2007
I have a modest proposal for providing the functionality of DHCPv4 in IPv6 autoconf:
How about using the mechanism in RFC 5075 to specify all of these variables as RA flags?
And as long as the variables also get defined as DHCPv6 fields, perhaps we could plan on having prefix delegation include these options, which the requesting router could then turn around and include in the RAs sent out on the link toward the customer.
Am I missing something?
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
--- On Thu, 12/27/07, James R. Cutler <james.cutler at consultant.com> wrote:
> From: James R. Cutler <james.cutler at consultant.com>
> Subject: [DCHPv6] was Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
> To: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog at merit.edu>
> Date: Thursday, December 27, 2007, 9:37 PM
> And, besides the list forwarded below,
> Designated printers,
> Preferred DNS Servers,
> and, maybe, more.
> Even in a large enterprise, the ratio of
> "routers" to DHCP servers
> makes control of many end system parameters via DHCP a
> management win
> compared to configuration of "routers" with this
> "non-network core"
> data. (In case I was to abstruse, It is cheaper to
> maintain end
> system parameters in a smaller number of DHCP servers than
> in a
> larger number of "routers".)
> This is completely separate from the fact that many
> router engineers are smart enough configure routers with
> NTP server
> addresses in preference to DNS names, and likewise for many
> The end system population has requirements which respond
> much more
> dynamically to business requirements than do router
> which respond mostly to wiring configurations which are, by
> comparison, static. The statement that DHCP is not needed
> for IPv6
> packet routing may well be exactly accurate. The absence
> of good
> DHCP support in IPv6 has costly consequences for enterprise
> management, of which IP routing is a small part.
> You have seen this before from me: Consider the
> Management viewpoint, not just that of routing packets
> around between
> boxes. Pull your head out of your patch panel and look at
> all the
> business requirements. If you can show me a more cost
> effective way
> to distribute all the parameters mentioned here to all end
> I'll support it. In the meantime, don't use
> religious arguments to
> prevent me from using whatever is appropriate to manage my
> I'll even use NAT boxes, if there is no equivalently
> stateful firewall box!
> Begin forwarded message:
> > From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
> > Date: December 27, 2007 7:33:08 PM EST
> > To: North American Network Operators Group
> <nanog at merit.edu>
> > Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line
> > In a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at
> 10:57:59PM +0100,
> > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >> It is wih IPv6: you just connect the ethernet
> cable and the RAs take
> >> care of the rest. _You_ _really_ _don't_
> _need_ _DHCP_ _for_ _IPv6_.
> >> If you need extreme control then manual
> configuration will give you
> >> that, which may be appropriate in some cases, such
> as servers.
> > Really. I didn't know RA's could:
> > - Configure NTP servers for me.
> > - Tell me where to netboot from.
> > - Enter dynamic DNS entries in the DNS tree for me.
> > - Tell me my domain name.
> > - Tell me the VLAN to use for IP Telephony.
> > Those are things I use on a regular basis I'd
> really rather not
> > manually configure.
> > --
> > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org,
> James R. Cutler
> james.cutler at consultant.com
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
More information about the NANOG