turning on comcast v6

Matthew Huff mhuff at ox.com
Fri Dec 20 14:29:39 UTC 2013

With RA, what is the smallest interval failover will work? Compare that with NHRP such as HSRP, VRRP, etc with sub-second failover.

In corporate networks most of the non-client systems will be statically addressed with privacy addresses turned off. This is for regulatory, audit, security and monitoring requirement. One of the many challenges of ipv6 in a corporate environment.

Matthew Huff             | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC       | Phone: 914-460-4039

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Howard [mailto:Lee at asgard.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:25 AM
> To: Jamie Bowden; Owen DeLong; ml at kenweb.org
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: turning on comcast v6
> On 12/20/13 8:07 AM, "Jamie Bowden" <jamie at photon.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "Parity" isn't enough information; what features are missing?  RA is
> >>part
> >> of IPv6, but you don't have to use SLAAC.
> >> I'd say it's the DHC people who need to hear it, not the IPv6 people,
> >>but
> >> YMMV.
> >
> >I have a question.  Why does DHCP hand out router, net mask, broadcast
> >address, etc. in IPv4; why don't we all just use RIP and be done with it?
> >
> >You don't have to like how enterprise networks are built, but you better
> >acknowledge that they are their own animal that have their own needs and
> >drivers, and telling them that the way their networks are built are wrong
> >and they need to change their whole architecture, separation of service,
> >security model, etc. to fit your idea of perfection isn't winning
> >friends.  You are, however, influencing people.  Perhaps not in the
> >manner you intended.
> So there's an interesting question.  You suggest there's a disagreement
> between enterprise network operators and protocol designers. Who should
> change?
> I used to run an enterprise network. It was very different from an ISP
> network. I didn't say, "You're wrong!" I said, "What's missing?"
> There are business reasons to run IPv6. The fact that it's different than
> IPv4 is not a reason not to use it.
> Lee
> >
> >Jamie
> >

More information about the NANOG mailing list