[c-nsp] IPv6 HSRP Support in 12.0S? ... into SLAAC

[TJ]

>Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:38:17PM +0000, David Freedman wrote:
>>> Even when you get it, it is only implemented for link-local addresses
>>> so you have to use RA or static routes :(
>>
>> Unfortunate, indeed.  Do you know whether there is work in progress to
>> get it fixed/improved to handle "global" router IP addresses?
>>
>> While it might not follow the IETF's vision of "how things should be",
>> we prefer to configure our servers' default route towards well-known
>> router addresses (<subnet>::1), and have them ignore RAs...

And nothing stops manual configuration, with perhaps a minor tweak in the
address of that default gateway (IMHO fe80::1 is not the right approach!).


>
>There is significant difference of opinion in the IETF about the value
>and future of RA in IPv6, as I found out recently when I tried to figure
>out how IPv6 DHCP was supposed to work (answer: the spec is broken)

IMHO, and I could be wrong, I think that was really a very vocal minority
... the vast majority of people I deal with, clients I work with, etc. have
no problem with RAs being used, for the default route host configuration
anyway.  
(FWIW - SLAAC vs (stateful) DHCPv6 both have advantages for the rest of the
host-config pieces, and I see no reason to not have both be available)


>
>This thread (if you have an afternoon free) and surrounding threads are
>worth reading:
>
>http://marc.info/?l=ipng&m=122391355810549&w=2
>
>As far as I could tell:
>
>  * IPv6 and the RA mechanism were spec'ed back when DHCPv4 was not
>widely used, and IPX autoconfig was the model they were aiming for
>
>  * Virtually no work has been done in the field since then, so the
>hard-learnt lessons of the last decade in IPv4 are simply not there in IPv6

Or perhaps consensus continues to favor IPv6's current approach?


>
>  * There are a lot of architecture astronauts in the IETF (IPSec for ND
>- whose idea was that?)

Well, SEND has promise ...


>
>  * The stateful-address/stateful-other bits in the RA are junk.
>
>The posts by David Hankins of the ISC agree with my personal position,
>including this one:
>
>http://marc.info/?l=ipng&m=122406652232186&w=2

Again, I think we are far from having consensus on RA deprecation ... while
the current handling of M & O bits are far from optimal, I don't see the RAs
themselves going away.


/TJ