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

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Fri Dec 30 01:12:43 UTC 2011

In message <68424.1325204802 at turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu writes:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:30:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> > IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
> > though, in this simplest case, an incomplete proxy of
> > relying on a default router works correctly.
> Which is sufficient for 99.8% of hosts out there.
> > Beyond that, if there are multiple routers, having a default
> > router and relying
> Yes yes we know, and we've understood this for a quarter century or so.  My
> disagreement is that even though 99.8% of machines *don't* have multiple
> routers, you seem to be pedantically insisting that some sort of IGP is
> mandatory for *all* end hosts, even though only 0.2% or so will actually see
> any benefit at all.

Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work.  Just because it is 0.2%
today doesn't mean that it will be 0.2% in the future.  As home
users get more and more dependent on the internet working having
diverse, independent network connectivity will become more and more

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org

More information about the NANOG mailing list