turning on comcast v6

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 30 21:49:29 UTC 2013


On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Ryan Harden <hardenrm at uchicago.edu> wrote:

> On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <Lee at asgard.org> wrote:
> 
>>> default route information via DHCPv6.  That's what I'm still waiting for.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> Lee
> 
> There are many places that wish to severely restrict or even block RA. Implementations of Captive Portal/NetReg/Bump in the wire auth/etc like to do redirection based on MAC. Many are doing this with very short DHCP leases that hand out different name servers and/or gateways until you properly auth via $method. You might be able to do this with something like RADVD, but when you have systems that have been doing this for IPv4 for years, there’s little interest (read: budget) in rewriting everything for IPv6.
> 

While I do not oppose the inclusion of Routing Information into DHCPv6, I have to say that this seems to be one of the weaker arguments.

Please permit me to repeat your statement from an IPv6 perspective…

Because many places have poorly thought out cruft that deals with deficiencies in IPv4 by doing stunts that won’t work in the current IPv6 implementation and because we don’t want to rewrite our cruft to take advantage of the cleaner solutions available for these problems in IPv6, we demand that you include the cruft from IPv4 into IPv6 in order to support this hackery.


> 'Rewrite all of your tools and change your long standing business practices’ is a very large barrier to entry to IPv6. If adding gateway as an optional field will help people get over that barrier, why not add it? Sure it doesn’t fit into the “IPv6 way,” but bean counters don’t care much for that when you have to ask for developer time to rewrite everything. 

You have to rewrite all your tools to handle the bigger addresses anyway. While you’re at it, why not rewrite them to take advantage of cleaner solutions?

> Disclaimer: I don’t condone said methods and trickery mentioned above, just pointing out their use.

So you’re defending a position you don’t share? Interesting tactic.

Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list