On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > I'm not really an advocate for or against DHCP or RAs. I really just want > to understand what feature is missing. > > From: Blake Dunlap <iki...@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:19 PM > To: Ryan Harden <harde...@uchicago.edu> > Cc: Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org>, Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com>, > "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: turning on comcast v6 > > > The better question is are you using RIP or ICMP to set gateways in your > > network now? > > I disagree that that's a better question. > I'm not using RIP because my hosts don't support it (at least, not without > additional configuration), and it would be a very unusual configuration, > adding weight and complexity for no benefit. RAs are the opposite. > Not even sure how you would use ICMP to set a default gateway. Maybe > there's a field I'm unaware of. >
[VK] The RIP comparison is somewhat confusing to me. I don't see how RIP is comparable in this context (I guess technically you can pass a default route in RIP, but as Lee mentions, the protocol is designed for a different purpose and requires configuration). I guess the ICMP reference fair as Neighbor Discovery is built on ICMP (which is a good thing in my opinion). Perhaps the reference here was to people not using RFC1256 in their networks? > > > > > > > If you don't use those now, why is RA a better solution in ipv6? > > It's built into the fundamentals of IPv6, using the Neighbor Discovery > Protocol. It's supported in every stack. It's the default mode of > operation. To turn it off, you have to disable part, but not all, of NDP. > (Do you also turn off RSs on all hosts?) > > [VK] Although I think there may be a valid case presented for an Option, I agree with Lee with the point that Neighbor Discovery is already built-in so it has operational benefits in that respect. There are many IPv6 deployments out there today in both ISPs and Enterprises, where ND/RAs are being used - this may or may not make RAs "better" then a potential DHCPv6 router option, but we know it (RA method) works in real networks using IPv6. As for a DHCPv6 router option case being made, if there a good reason and technical merit, that should be made to the DHC WG, or perhaps even made at a v6ops ops meeting and the advocate should make note of points made in draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines/>. Changes/updates to DHCPv6 have been made (as with RFC7083) when the problem can be stated with technical merit and people are willing to work on it. regards, Victor K
