turning on comcast v6

Ryan Harden hardenrm at uchicago.edu
Tue Dec 31 18:11:17 UTC 2013


On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue that DHCPv6+RA doesn't work. So we'd all expect that you'd do just fine deploying that way for your large enterprise. The point is that there are some (And based on the thread here and over at IPv6-OPS, not just a couple) operators who wish or are required to do things differently. I remember thinking how stupid it was we had to either statically configure or run DHCPv6 (which a lot of clients didn't support) for the sole purpose of handing out name servers, then we finally got around to RFC6106. There were lots of people who just couldn't understand why you'd ever want your router handing out name servers/dns search lists. Sure DHCPv6 was/is the 'right' and 'clean' way to do it, but it shouldn't be required to make IPv6 functional. Clearly the IETF agreed, eventually.

IMO, being able to hand out gateway information based on $criteria via DHCPv6 is a logical feature to ask for. Anyone asking for that isn't trying to tell you that RA is broken, that you're doing things wrong, or that their way of thinking is more important that yours. They're asking for it because they have a business need that would make their deployment of IPv6 easier. Which, IMO, should be the goal of these discussions. How do we make it so deploying IPv6 isn't a pain in the butt? No one is asking to change the world, they're asking for the ability to manage their IPv6 systems the same way they do IPv4.

/Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20131231/9c45f816/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list