turning on comcast v6

Tue Dec 31 07:10:44 UTC 2013

I've been in the process of rolling out IPv6 (again this night) across a
very large, highly conservative, and very bureaucratic enterprise. (Roughly
100K employees. More than 600 distinct site. Yada. Yada.) I've had no
issues whatsoever implementing the IPv6 RA+DHCPv6 model alongside the IPv4
model. In fact, the IPv6 model has generally been much more straightforward
and easy to implement.

So I'm a large enterprise operator, not an ISP. Convince me. Because I
don't see any need. And if I don't, I'm hard-pressed to see why the IETF
would.

Scott

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>