The better question is are you using RIP or ICMP to set gateways in your network now?
If you don't use those now, why is RA a better solution in ipv6? -Blake On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Ryan Harden <harde...@uchicago.edu> wrote: > On Dec 30, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> 'Rewrite all of your tools and change your long standing business > >> practices¹ 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 doesn¹t fit into the ³IPv6 way,² but bean counters don¹t care > >> much for that when you have to ask for developer time to rewrite > >> everything. > > > > > > Well, the tools have to be rewritten to support IPv6 fields, sockets, and > > structures anyway. However, there's a difference between, "Make sure you > > call IP family agnostic libraries and increase field sizes, then let it > > run" and "Rebuild your network security." DHCP+RA just works in most > > networks; this is a use case where it could be made to work, but only by > > changing the network. > > Updating tools to add a box for IPv6 fields and tweaking the backend to > generate a config file for DHCPv6 which is very similar to DHCP(for v4) is > a lot different/easier than having to rewrite and/or split your backend to > generate output in a completely different format. However, I'm not as > familiar with RADVD as I am with isc-dhcpd so that might be a bad argument. > > And you don't have to support IPv6 from top to bottom to roll out IPv6 to > users. So rewriting for socket support isn't necessary day one. You can > route IPv6 for users so they can reach the IPv6 world quickly, then add > local services as time/money allows. The biggest driver for IPv6 will be > external resources available only via IPv6, not local. (Of course this is > from the point of view where your business' primary service isn't outward > facing resources.) > > I'm sure DHCP+RA works for most, but there are IPv4 shops who swear by > fully dynamic DHCP, some who do DHCP-Reservations, and some who go static > only. Just like some shops are EIGRP, some OSPF, and some ISIS. IMO IPv6 > needs to be flexible enough to handle the fact that not everyone builds > identical architectures nor do they have the exact same needs. Being able > to use DHCPv6+RA, RA only, or DHCPv6 only should all be viable options. > Forcing everyone down the same path will just lead to stupid proprietary > solutions to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. > > /Ryan >
