Jeff McAdams jeffm at
Sat Dec 19 14:49:42 UTC 2015

Congratulations, Sander, on proving Matthew's point quite consicely.

Matthew pointed out reasons that people don't like this setup, and reasons
that they *AREN'T DEPLOYING IPV6*.  And you blow them off with, "but it's
not the best way."  Great, I think I probably even agree with you that
using the RAs is, in general better, but let me make this really clear.

It. Is. An. Obstacle. For. Some. People. To. Deploy. IPv6.

The IETF went for a lot of architectural purity (and ignored some real
world valid use cases that RA just won't work for at all), and wanted
something clean and well designed...and that's OK.  But it doesn't help us
solve the real-world problem of IPv4 depletion if that architectural
purity causes people not to deploy the solution.

Real world operators (some, at least) want default route/router assigned
via DHCP for real world operational reasons.  If the IETF and others
respond merely by saying that it's better to do IPv6 this other way, right
or wrong, *THE IETF* is the problem.

It's far past time to worry about architectural purity.  We need people
deploying IPv6 *NOW*, and it needs to be the job of the IETF, at this
point, to fix the problems that are causing people not to deploy.

On Sat, December 19, 2015 09:03, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>> The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements
>> from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning
>> addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's just
>> confusing and unnecessary and IMHO isn't helpful for persuading people
>> to move to IPv6. Especially when everyone already understands DHCP in
>> the v4 world.
>> Both RAs and DHCP have their place and can be really useful
>> together or apart in different situations, but witholding key
>> functionality from DHCP "beacuse you can do it in a RA instead" isn't
>> helping the v6 cause.
> Have you ever tried to deploy IPv6 (even if only in a lab environment)? I
> have worked with several companies (ISP and enterprise) and once they
> stop thinking "I want to do everything in IPv6 in exactly the same way as
> I have always done in IPv4" and actually look at the features that IPv6
> provides them they are usually much happier with IPv6 than they were with
> IPv4.
> I am sure that a century ago people who were used to horse and buggy
> transport thought that cars were annoyingly complex and that having to
> put petrol in instead of hay was a huge problem. But I am very glad that
> in the end they adapted instead of convincing other people to make cars
> run on hay ;)
> Just joking of course, but seriously: we need to look at what the best
> solution for the future is, not at ways of avoiding having to learn
> something new/different.
> Cheers,
> Sander


More information about the NANOG mailing list