turning on comcast v6

Lee Howard Lee at asgard.org
Mon Dec 30 18:45:45 UTC 2013


On 12/30/13 11:19 AM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

>
>On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <Lee at asgard.org> wrote:
>
>> Why?
>> You say, "The protocol suite doesn't meet my needs; I need default
>>gateway
>> in DHCPv6."  So the IETF WG must change for you to deploy IPv6.  Why?
>
>Why must the people who want it justify to _you_?

They don't; they have to justify it to the DHC WG at IETF, in order to
generate consensus.

>
>This is fundamental part I've not gotten about the IPv6 crowd.  IPv4 got
>to
>where it is by letting people extend it and develop new protocols and
>solutions.
>DHCP did not exist when IPv4 was created, it was tacked on later.  Now
>people want to tack something on to IPv6 to make it more useful to them.
>Why do they need to explain it to you, if it doesn't affect your
>deployments
>at all?

You can provision your network any way you like.  If you want to create a
custom version of DHCP (or your own provisioning protocol), that's fine.
There doesn't seem to be consensus that default gateway in DHCP is a good
idea. There's "running code" for how to change this.


>
>Some of us think the model where a DHCP server knows the subnet and hands
>out
>a default gateway provides operational advantages.  It's an opinion.  And
>the
>current IPv6 crowds view that not having a default route and relaying on
>RA's
>is better is also an opinion.
>
>We've spent years of wasted bits and oxygen on ONE STUPID FIELD IN DHCP.
>Put
>it in their, and let the market sort it out, unless you can justify some
>dire
>harm from doing so.

I don't like the "let many flowers bloom" model of protocol development.
You end up with a lot of cruft in protocols. Successful protocols tend not
to have that (at least, when they become successful). I don't know if it
will do harm (though it's easy to imagine DHCP not aligning with default
gateways in modern, more mobile networks).  But if the barrier for adding
fields is "Eh, it probably won't cause dire harm" then we would have
pretty messy protocols.

>
>What is more important fast IPv6 adoption or belittling people who want
>to 
>deploy it in some slightly different way than you did?

Did I belittle anybody?  I apologize if I did that.  It certainly was not
my intent. I'm trying to understand a point of view.

Lee


>
>-- 
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>
>
>
>
>
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list