v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
jfbeam at gmail.com
Tue Feb 10 15:41:41 CST 2009
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ <trejrco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
> forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are "frequent" events.
Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and when you plug it into moderately
unstable things like phone lines (DSL) and cable networks, those little
bugs cause reloads -- you'd think they'd have better error handling, but
they don't. (I don't buy millions in equipment from Cisco so they don't
care about my problems.) While I could use backup links, flip-floping
between ISPs with different addresses is not ideal (and that's as true for
v6 as v4.)
> Why is there a problem with RAs being the first step, possibly including
> prefix info or possibly just hinting @ DHCPv6?
Because it doesn't fit the needs of *every* network. In fact, it's only
"good enough" for very few networks. As such it just adds more useless
layers of bloat.
> Well, as it stands now the RA isn't useless.
> Also, it is not true in every case that hosts need a "lot more" than an
> In many cases all my machine needs is an address, default gateway and DNS
> server (cheat off of v4 | RFC5006 | Stateless DHCPv6).
It's useless. It does NOT provide enough information alone for a host to
function. In your own words, you need a DNS server. That is NOT provided
by RA thus requires yet another system to get that bit of configuration to
the host -- either entered manually, DHCPv6, or from IPv4 network
configuration (ie. DHCP!) Forcing this BS on the world is a colossal
waste. We've had a system to provide *ALL* the information a host needs
or wants in the IPv4 world for years. Why it's not good enough for IPv6
is beyond me.
More information about the NANOG