[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"
dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Sep 10 09:03:05 CEST 2012
On 9/8/2012 12:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2012, at 12:42 , Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
>> On 09/05/2012 23:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> SLAAC+RDNSS is very useful. SLAAC without RDNSS not so much since you
>>> then have to deploy DHCP anyway just to get the basic functionality
>>> SLAAC should have originally included.
>>> Yes, lots of enterprises want DHCP for a variety of reasons (though I
>>> think that if they had SLAAC+RDNSS, many of the ones that currently
>>> think they need DHCP would realize they don't).
>> I work with a lot of enterprises on large-scale DHCP. It's actually
>> pretty common for them to want many more options set than just what the
>> resolving name servers are.
> So? No one is arguing against complete DHCP implementation.
Actually quite a few people are. That's part of the problem. :)
> I'm arguing for RDNSS implementation. They are not mutually exclusive.
No, but having the 2 things overlap for any given number of options
makes implementors' jobs much harder.
>> The other issue that comes up often in these discussions is the idea of
>> administrative separation between the people who run the routers, and
>> the people who handle things like DNS and DHCP. Most enterprises want
>> this separation preserved.
> And they can have it with DHCP.
No, they can't. SLAAC is mandatory at this point in the process (well,
RA is, but you get the idea).
> What's wrong with making RDNSS available to the environments that want it?
Having 2 ways to provision the same thing makes implementors' jobs harder.
>> SLAAC was an interesting idea for the simple provisioning of dumb
>> devices. Anything more exciting requires DHCP. It's very unfortunate
>> that the anti-DHCP contingent is still fighting a battle that they lost
>> 12 years ago, and delaying wider IPv6 rollout as a result.
> I completely disagree here. There are many environments where 99%
> of the desktop users just need an address, DNS servers, and a default
> route. In a lot of those environments, the guy running DNS is the same
> guy running the routers. SLAAC+RDNSS is useful in those environments.
And those same environments could have gotten the same minimal
configuration from DHCP, just like they do for IPv4 now.
> Why is it that the DHCP-heads can't understand that pro-SLAAC is not
> inherently anti-DHCP?
Maybe because the pro-SLAAC folks have waged war against a complete
DHCPv6 implementation from day 1?
> I say implement it all and let each environment pick the solution that works
> best for them.
... and once again, that's a terrible idea because it makes
implementors' jobs harder (speaking with my ACME Implementor hat on).
If there are 2 ways to provision everything for v6, then as an
implementor of end user systems I have to spend all the time to write
code to support both. I don't want to do that. I'd much rather implement
a DHCP that gives me a 1-stop shop for everything I need, and fall back
on SLAAC for minimal configuration if necessary.
In the early days of v6 the weaknesses of SLAAC were pointed out, as
well as the advantages of DHCP. The v6 technorati continue to stay deaf
to those arguments, and v6 adoption continues to suffer because of it.
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
More information about the Ipv6hackers