IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

Thu Oct 22 20:52:40 UTC 2009

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:40:50 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:

> On 21 okt 2009, at 22:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> > The assumption that the router "knows" it is correct for every host  
> > on a given
> > LAN simply does not map to reality deployed today.
> 
> What I'm saying is that a router knows whether it's a router or not. A  
> DHCP server does not, so it has to make a leap of faith and then  
> sometimes the hosts fall flat on their face if there's no router on  
> the address indicated by the DHCP server. The counter-argument is "it  
> works today" but my counter-counter-argument is "it doesn't work  
> today". I get burned by broken DHCP setups _all_ _the_ _time_ at work,  
> at IETF meetings, at RIPE meetings, etc.
> 
> Anyone claiming that having a DHCP server direct hosts to a router  
> address in the blind is simply incompetetent, so there is no point in  
> listening to them.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break  
> the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their  
> presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
> 
> > Please explain to me how I can achieve this functionality in RA/SLAAC
> > or stop pushing to prevent it from being available in DHCPv6.
> 
> There is no requirement that the IETF provides all functionality that  
> someone can think up. The list of desired functionality is infinite,  
> and much on that list is a bad idea and/or can be achieved in  
> different ways.
> 
> > Seriously, we're all adults.  So treating us like children and  
> > taking away
> > the power tools is not appreciated.
> 
> Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult.
> 

Great way to shoot down your own credibility. Just because you don't
have or don't understand problems other people have doesn't mean they
don't have them or they're invalid. You'd be far better off proposing
alternative solutions that use methods that you believe in, or looking
to understand better why your methods aren't appropriate.

(I don't believe in your agenda to add a prefix length option to
DHCPv6 (you probably haven't run an IPX or Appletalk network, and
therefore haven't experienced the convenience of fixed length
subnets/node addresses), but I don't think it's appropriate to call you
a child because of you naivety in this area ...)