Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?

Ray Soucy rps at maine.edu
Thu Dec 29 11:38:13 UTC 2011

Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
that all the "overhead" of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.

Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
and should also include IGP.

Seems like IPv6 as it is has struck a balance somewhere in the middle.
 It's never going to be the perfect solution for every situation.

There is a lot of academic and theoretical argument being made here,
but not so much on the practical application side.  I think this
discussion went down hill when we started seeing people point to
"evidence" that IPv6 is "broken" being special use cases that IPv4
can't even handle properly.

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Vitkovsky, Adam
<avitkovsky at emea.att.com> wrote:
> (*) If you think I'm going to run an IGP on some of my file servers when
> "default route to the world out the public 1G interface, and 5 static routes
> describing the private 10G network" is actually the *desired* semantic because
> if anybody re-engineers the 10G net enough to make me change the routes, I have
> *other* things to change as well, like iptables entries and /etc/exports and so
> on.  I don't *want* an IGP changing that stuff around wiithout the liveware
> taking a meeting to discuss deployment of the change.
> Well the only reason why you still have a good night sleep with the primary path in flames and all those in stone carved static routes is that your server is connected via ether channel to a couple of boxes with dual RPs and redundant power supplies running VSS or vPC and routers running vrrp
> All of this just because the end station just can't route around a failed link

Ray Soucy

Epic Communications Specialist

Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526

Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System

More information about the NANOG mailing list