[DHCPv6] was Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

Wed Oct 21 20:37:40 UTC 2009

We have networks and businesses to run. Why are we rehashing this yet  
again?

For example, in December 200l http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2007-12/msg00280.html 
  shows messages regarding exactly this issue. for emphasis I  
redundantly requote, "You have seen this before from me: Consider the  
Customer/Business 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 systems, I'll support it. In the meantime, don't use religious  
arguments to prevent me from using whatever is appropriate to manage  
my business. I'll even use NAT boxes, if there is no equivalently  
affordable stateful firewall box!"

Just in case the URL is faulty, here is the primary content of the  
referenced page of NANOG list history:

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 experienced router  
engineers are smart enough configure routers with NTP server    
addresses in preference to DNS names, and likewise for many other  
parameters.

The end system population has requirements which respond much more  
dynamically to business requirements than do router configurations,  
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 Customer/Business  
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 systems, I'll  
support it. In the meantime, don't use religious arguments to prevent  
me from using whatever is appropriate to manage my business. I'll even  
use NAT boxes, if there is no equivalently affordable stateful  
firewall box!

Cutler

Begin forwarded message:

From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at xxxxxxx>
Date: December 27, 2007 7:33:08 PM EST
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog at xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers

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 xxxxxxx - CCIE 3440
         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at xxxxxxxx, www.tmbg.org

James R. Cutler
james.cutler at consultant.com