With RA, what is the smallest interval failover will work? Compare that with NHRP such as HSRP, VRRP, etc with sub-second failover.
In corporate networks most of the non-client systems will be statically addressed with privacy addresses turned off. This is for regulatory, audit, security and monitoring requirement. One of the many challenges of ipv6 in a corporate environment. ---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Howard [mailto:l...@asgard.org] > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:25 AM > To: Jamie Bowden; Owen DeLong; m...@kenweb.org > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: Re: turning on comcast v6 > > > > On 12/20/13 8:07 AM, "Jamie Bowden" <ja...@photon.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> "Parity" isn't enough information; what features are missing? RA is > >>part > >> of IPv6, but you don't have to use SLAAC. > >> I'd say it's the DHC people who need to hear it, not the IPv6 people, > >>but > >> YMMV. > > > >I have a question. Why does DHCP hand out router, net mask, broadcast > >address, etc. in IPv4; why don't we all just use RIP and be done with it? > > > >You don't have to like how enterprise networks are built, but you better > >acknowledge that they are their own animal that have their own needs and > >drivers, and telling them that the way their networks are built are wrong > >and they need to change their whole architecture, separation of service, > >security model, etc. to fit your idea of perfection isn't winning > >friends. You are, however, influencing people. Perhaps not in the > >manner you intended. > > So there's an interesting question. You suggest there's a disagreement > between enterprise network operators and protocol designers. Who should > change? > > I used to run an enterprise network. It was very different from an ISP > network. I didn't say, "You're wrong!" I said, "What's missing?" > > There are business reasons to run IPv6. The fact that it's different than > IPv4 is not a reason not to use it. > > Lee > > > > >Jamie > > > >
