turning on comcast v6
ikiris at gmail.com
Mon Dec 30 20:19:27 UTC 2013
The better question is are you using RIP or ICMP to set gateways in your
If you don't use those now, why is RA a better solution in ipv6?
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Ryan Harden <hardenrm at uchicago.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Lee Howard <Lee at asgard.org> wrote:
> >> 'Rewrite all of your tools and change your long standing business
> >> practices¹ is a very large barrier to entry to IPv6. If adding gateway
> >> an optional field will help people get over that barrier, why not add
> >> Sure it doesn¹t fit into the ³IPv6 way,² but bean counters don¹t care
> >> much for that when you have to ask for developer time to rewrite
> >> everything.
> > Well, the tools have to be rewritten to support IPv6 fields, sockets, and
> > structures anyway. However, there's a difference between, "Make sure you
> > call IP family agnostic libraries and increase field sizes, then let it
> > run" and "Rebuild your network security." DHCP+RA just works in most
> > networks; this is a use case where it could be made to work, but only by
> > changing the network.
> Updating tools to add a box for IPv6 fields and tweaking the backend to
> generate a config file for DHCPv6 which is very similar to DHCP(for v4) is
> a lot different/easier than having to rewrite and/or split your backend to
> generate output in a completely different format. However, I'm not as
> familiar with RADVD as I am with isc-dhcpd so that might be a bad argument.
> And you don't have to support IPv6 from top to bottom to roll out IPv6 to
> users. So rewriting for socket support isn't necessary day one. You can
> route IPv6 for users so they can reach the IPv6 world quickly, then add
> local services as time/money allows. The biggest driver for IPv6 will be
> external resources available only via IPv6, not local. (Of course this is
> from the point of view where your business' primary service isn't outward
> facing resources.)
> I'm sure DHCP+RA works for most, but there are IPv4 shops who swear by
> fully dynamic DHCP, some who do DHCP-Reservations, and some who go static
> only. Just like some shops are EIGRP, some OSPF, and some ISIS. IMO IPv6
> needs to be flexible enough to handle the fact that not everyone builds
> identical architectures nor do they have the exact same needs. Being able
> to use DHCPv6+RA, RA only, or DHCPv6 only should all be viable options.
> Forcing everyone down the same path will just lead to stupid proprietary
> solutions to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
More information about the NANOG