IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Thu Oct 22 20:42:24 UTC 2009
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:20:11 +1100
Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > 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.
> The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if
> multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably
> that would not happen in a well-tended network.
IPv6 Subnets/VLANs are pretty cheap, maybe if people are having this
issue, that's a sign they need to divide their hosts into more
More broadly, it seems the argument is where to put networking
operational policy - in the network (via e.g. engineered topology), or
on the hosts. I think there is value in putting it in the network,
because it avoids having to change host located policy when the
network policy changes.
> In any case, anywhere this is actually of vital importance, a routing
> protocol would be in use.
> Using the DHCP protocol to deliver information - about anything really -
> is what it's *for*. That said, making clients depend utterly on the
> presence of a working DHCP server for basic connectivity seems like a
> backward step. Of course, different people have different ideas about
> what constitutes "basic" connectivity.
> > Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult.
> Whoa! Tell you what, how about if I break it, and you get to choose
> which piece you keep? [Bash, bash, thud. Ugh. Hm. It's tougher than it
> Regards, K.
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)
> GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
More information about the NANOG