<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} .ms-cui-menu {background-color:#ffffff;border:1px rgb(171, 171, 171) solid;font-family:'Segoe UI WPC', 'Segoe UI', Tahoma, 'Microsoft Sans Serif', Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:11pt;color:rgb(51, 51, 51);} .ms-cui-menusection-title {display:none;} .ms-cui-ctl {vertical-align:text-top;text-decoration:none;color:rgb(51, 51, 51);} .ms-cui-ctl-on {background-color:rgb(223, 237, 250);opacity: 0.8;} .ms-cui-img-cont-float {display:inline-block;margin-top:2px} .ms-cui-smenu-inner {padding-top:0px;} .ms-owa-paste-option-icon {margin: 2px 4px 0px 4px;vertical-align:sub;padding-bottom: 2px;display:inline-block;} .ms-rtePasteFlyout-option:hover {background-color:rgb(223, 237, 250) !important;opacity:1 !important;} .ms-rtePasteFlyout-option {padding:8px 4px 8px 4px;outline:none;} .ms-cui-menusection {float:left; width:85px;height:24px;overflow:hidden}--></style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>Is there a chance this discussion can be captured in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison-00" id="lnk629205">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison-00</a> , or in some other "problem statement"
document for potential issues re configuring routing with RAs?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There has been a few discussion recently on this topic, and hence it does seem there is pain, however it doesn't seem there is a consensus on what all the pain points exactly are, as well as that DHCP is necessarily the right cure for that pain. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>To me it seems that capturing pain points in a document, which by going through the standard IETF process would (or would not) gather consensus on the problem statement, could be a productive way to move forward toward a solution.<br>
</p>
<div style="color: #282828;">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>From:</b> ipv6-ops-bounces+dmitry.anipko=microsoft.com@lists.cluenet.de <ipv6-ops-bounces+dmitry.anipko=microsoft.com@lists.cluenet.de> on behalf
of Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nick Hilliard<br>
<b>Cc:</b> IPv6 Ops list<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: RA & DHCP problem...</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Nick Hilliard <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:nick@foobar.org" target="_blank">nick@foobar.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 29/12/2013 20:48, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:<br>
> Is the size an issue here? Is there something about having tens of<br>
> thousands of IPv6 hosts that makes RAs unsuitable?<br>
<br>
</div>
yes, size is an issue: it means that tweaking ns-interval is not feasible<br>
as a mechanism for dropping failover times.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Agreed, using NUD timers for failover (aka "hammer the first-hop router") doesn't scale.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
and if your hosts miss a packet, you get traffic swinging to your other<br>
default. You may like to debug this sort of thing, but I operate in<br>
companies with non-telephone number cost constraints and have a strong need for operational simplicity and consistency.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It depends on how much loss there is and how many hosts switch. But yes, you probably want some margin.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> The operator can drop a protocol, but the host implementer needs to<br>
> handle<br>
<br>
</div>
yep, exactly, but please bear in mind that networks are provisioned by<br>
operators for end-users. Network stacks are not written by host<br>
implementers for their own gratification.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>True, but the party that pays the cost is always the end user.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><span style="color: #222222;">doesn't scale. Routers are routers, not policy management engines. DHCP </span><span style="color: #222222;">is for policy management and there is just no scalable way of handling this </span><span style="color: #222222;">on
routers.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There's nothing stopping the routers from getting this information via RADIUS.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> DHCP doesn't help there. If you want better than that, you need to use<br>
</div>
<div class="im">> something like VRRP anyway.<br>
<br>
</div>
Yes, I know: DHCPv6 + a first-hop routing protocol. This is the scenario<br>
I am interested in deploying. You know what? It works really well in<br>
practice.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Well, but so does RA + VRRPv3. In addition to working in practice, it's a standard.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>