On Dec 20, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote: > With RA, what is the smallest interval failover will work? Compare that with > NHRP such as HSRP, VRRP, etc with sub-second failover.
RA and VRRP are not mutually exclusive. What you can’t have (currently) is routing information distributed by a DHCP server which may or may not actually know anything about the routing environment to which it is sending such information. > 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. There’s no problem doing this in IPv6. You can easily statically address a system and you can easily turn off privacy addresses. You can even do that and still get your default router via RA or you can statically configure the default router address. As such, can someone please explain what is the actual missing or problematic requirement for the corporate world? Owen > > > ---- > 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 >>> >> >>
