I've been in the process of rolling out IPv6 (again this night) across a very large, highly conservative, and very bureaucratic enterprise. (Roughly 100K employees. More than 600 distinct site. Yada. Yada.) I've had no issues whatsoever implementing the IPv6 RA+DHCPv6 model alongside the IPv4 model. In fact, the IPv6 model has generally been much more straightforward and easy to implement.
So I'm a large enterprise operator, not an ISP. Convince me. Because I don't see any need. And if I don't, I'm hard-pressed to see why the IETF would. Scott On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Ryan Harden <harde...@uchicago.edu> wrote: > > > On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: > > > >>> default route information via DHCPv6. That's what I'm still waiting > for. > >> > >> Why? > >> You say, "The protocol suite doesn't meet my needs; I need default > gateway > >> in DHCPv6." So the IETF WG must change for you to deploy IPv6. Why? > >> > >> Lee > > > > There are many places that wish to severely restrict or even block RA. > Implementations of Captive Portal/NetReg/Bump in the wire auth/etc like to > do redirection based on MAC. Many are doing this with very short DHCP > leases that hand out different name servers and/or gateways until you > properly auth via $method. You might be able to do this with something like > RADVD, but when you have systems that have been doing this for IPv4 for > years, there’s little interest (read: budget) in rewriting everything for > IPv6. > > > > While I do not oppose the inclusion of Routing Information into DHCPv6, I > have to say that this seems to be one of the weaker arguments. > > Please permit me to repeat your statement from an IPv6 perspective… > > Because many places have poorly thought out cruft that deals with > deficiencies in IPv4 by doing stunts that won’t work in the current IPv6 > implementation and because we don’t want to rewrite our cruft to take > advantage of the cleaner solutions available for these problems in IPv6, we > demand that you include the cruft from IPv4 into IPv6 in order to support > this hackery. > > > > 'Rewrite all of your tools and change your long standing business > practices’ 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 doesn’t fit into the “IPv6 way,” but bean counters don’t care much > for that when you have to ask for developer time to rewrite everything. > > You have to rewrite all your tools to handle the bigger addresses anyway. > While you’re at it, why not rewrite them to take advantage of cleaner > solutions? > > > Disclaimer: I don’t condone said methods and trickery mentioned above, > just pointing out their use. > > So you’re defending a position you don’t share? Interesting tactic. > > Owen > > >
