[c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

[Alexander Clouter]

Hi,

* Bjørn Mork <bjorn at mork.no> [2009-08-27 11:31:08+0200]:
>
> sthaug at nethelp.no writes:
> 
> >> > Some of us would disagree rather strongly with one or more of those
> >> > points. For instance, for us DHCPv6 is a hard requirement.
> >> > 
> >> Why the hard requirement?  Is this for a MAC<->IP association table?  
> >> I'm working on a method (might not work mind you) to make a SLAAC 
> >> network forfill this requirement...I have to so we meet our upstream 
> >> AUP requirements but running DHCPv6 kinda misses the point for why you 
> >> try to deploy IPv6. :)
> >
> > This is an old discussion, and has been rehashed a number of times on
> > various DHCP and IPv6 mailing lists. In any case:
> >
> > - SLAAC cannot distribute all the parameters that DHCP distributes to
> > customers today. Example of parameters needed: DNS servers, domain
> > name, NTP servers, ...
> 
> No it can't, but personally I see that as a feature :-)
> 
> We need to publish DNS servers, but RFC 5006 solves that.  The other
> DHCP options are mostly unecessary bloat.  Are there really that many
> DHCP clients doing anything useful with the NTP option?  I guess you may
> have set-top boxes using it, but those can just as well be pre-configured
> with the well-known DNS name of your NTP servers.
> 
Service discovery (SLP, SDP and DNS based) and multicast (NTP 
especially) has been with us for years.  I think this is the problem 
people have with IPv6, their mindset is stuck in IPv4 for a lot of 
things.

> > - DHCP lets us control customer address allocation from one central
> > point, instead of having to individually configure routers.
> 
> You can do that with SLAAC too, e.g. by using RADIUS.
> 
> We'll of course use DHCPv6 too, mostly because we want prefix
> delegation.  But I still think SLAAC is useful in some settings, even
> for ISPs. I want both.
>
I do not think SLAAC was ever intended for the ISP<->CPE, I could not 
see how it could be used there.  However for router<->node I cannot see 
why people are so against it.

Obviously I'm in a minority so I'm going to disappear back into the     
Ether :)

Cheers

-- 
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: God isn't dead.  He just doesn't want to get involved.