In message <op.uo5nvrmrtfh...@rbeam.xactional.com>, "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ <trej...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
> > forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
>
> More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are "frequent" events.
> Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and when you plug it into moderately
> unstable things like phone lines (DSL) and cable networks, those little
> bugs cause reloads -- you'd think they'd have better error handling, but
> they don't. (I don't buy millions in equipment from Cisco so they don't
> care about my problems.) While I could use backup links, flip-floping
> between ISPs with different addresses is not ideal (and that's as true for
> v6 as v4.)
>
> > Why is there a problem with RAs being the first step, possibly including
> > prefix info or possibly just hinting @ DHCPv6?
>
> Because it doesn't fit the needs of *every* network. In fact, it's only
> "good enough" for very few networks. As such it just adds more useless
> layers of bloat.
Good. You admit it fits the needs of some networks.
> > Well, as it stands now the RA isn't useless.
> ...
> > Also, it is not true in every case that hosts need a "lot more" than an
> > address.
> > In many cases all my machine needs is an address, default gateway and DNS
> > server (cheat off of v4 | RFC5006 | Stateless DHCPv6).
>
> It's useless. It does NOT provide enough information alone for a host to
> function.
Hogwash. The only thing needed for I used from DHCP on my
laptop is router, address and netmask. I actually discard
anything else that is offered. RA's meet my needs perfectly
fine. In fact they do a better job than DHCP for my needs.
I don't trust dns servers returned by dhcp. Lots of them
don't offer the level of functionality I require. I run
my own recursive resolver to get the level of functionality
I require.
> In your own words, you need a DNS server. That is NOT provided
> by RA thus requires yet another system to get that bit of configuration to
> the host -- either entered manually, DHCPv6, or from IPv4 network
> configuration (ie. DHCP!) Forcing this BS on the world is a colossal
> waste. We've had a system to provide *ALL* the information a host needs
> or wants in the IPv4 world for years. Why it's not good enough for IPv6
> is beyond me.
>
> --Ricky
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org
