We have networks and businesses to run. Why are we rehashing this yet
again?
For example, in December 200l http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2007-12/msg00280.html
shows messages regarding exactly this issue. for emphasis I
redundantly requote, "You have seen this before from me: Consider the
Customer/Business Management viewpoint, not just that of routing
packets around between boxes. Pull your head out of your patch panel
and look at all the business requirements. If you can show me a more
cost effective way to distribute all the parameters mentioned here to
all end systems, I'll support it. In the meantime, don't use religious
arguments to prevent me from using whatever is appropriate to manage
my business. I'll even use NAT boxes, if there is no equivalently
affordable stateful firewall box!"
Just in case the URL is faulty, here is the primary content of the
referenced page of NANOG list history:
And, besides the list forwarded below,
Designated printers,
Preferred DNS Servers,
and, maybe, more.
Even in a large enterprise, the ratio of "routers" to DHCP servers
makes control of many end system parameters via DHCP a management win
compared to configuration of "routers" with this "non-network core"
data. (In case I was to abstruse, It is cheaper to maintain end system
parameters in a smaller number of DHCP servers than in a larger number
of "routers".)
This is completely separate from the fact that many experienced router
engineers are smart enough configure routers with NTP server
addresses in preference to DNS names, and likewise for many other
parameters.
The end system population has requirements which respond much more
dynamically to business requirements than do router configurations,
which respond mostly to wiring configurations which are, by
comparison, static. The statement that DHCP is not needed for IPv6
packet routing may well be exactly accurate. The absence of good DHCP
support in IPv6 has costly consequences for enterprise management, of
which IP routing is a small part.
You have seen this before from me: Consider the Customer/Business
Management viewpoint, not just that of routing packets around between
boxes. Pull your head out of your patch panel and look at all the
business requirements. If you can show me a more cost effective way to
distribute all the parameters mentioned here to all end systems, I'll
support it. In the meantime, don't use religious arguments to prevent
me from using whatever is appropriate to manage my business. I'll even
use NAT boxes, if there is no equivalently affordable stateful
firewall box!
Cutler
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leo Bicknell <bickn...@xxxxxxx>
Date: December 27, 2007 7:33:08 PM EST
To: North American Network Operators Group <na...@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
In a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:57:59PM +0100,
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It is wih IPv6: you just connect the ethernet cable and the RAs take
care of the rest. _You_ _really_ _don't_ _need_ _DHCP_ _for_ _IPv6_.
If you need extreme control then manual configuration will give you
that, which may be appropriate in some cases, such as servers.
Really. I didn't know RA's could:
- Configure NTP servers for me.
- Tell me where to netboot from.
- Enter dynamic DNS entries in the DNS tree for me.
- Tell me my domain name.
- Tell me the VLAN to use for IP Telephony.
Those are things I use on a regular basis I'd really rather not
manually configure.
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@xxxxxxx - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-requ...@xxxxxxxx, www.tmbg.org
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
