So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

[Rickman, Phil]

Nick,

one final point.
I am curious how you wish to dynamic assign 2,000 clients, for an examples, gateways if DHCPv6 does not support it?
Planning to run around statically configuring them all?

RA prefix suppression is one thing , gateway assignment suppression kinda breaks your network by suppressing all gateways is another, MTU & best path data is another.
Please keep your comments less emotive


Phil 
________________________________________
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+ipv6=aorta.net at lists.cluenet.de [ipv6-ops-bounces+ipv6=aorta.net at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard [nick at foobar.org]
Sent: 31 May 2010 15:34
To: Benedikt Stockebrand
Cc: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

On 30/05/2010 11:05, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
> Using Autoconf and Network Unreachability Detection for router
> failover doesn't give you the fastest failover time, but at least it
> gives these people a chance.

Depending on RA means:

- loss of service measured in (by default) minutes in the case of router
failure
- serious security problems due to rogue RA announcements by unauthorised
network clients

Either of these problems on their own makes RA unsuitable for most
applications other than enthusiast / home / playpen.

But, if you want to operate your network with lousy availability
characteristics and where any arbitrary client can hijack the network, then
by all means, please go ahead and do so.  Just don't pretend that it's
going to be reliable.

Nick