Re: Adoption Call for <draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option>

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Philip Homburg <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > At the same time, there are networks that a decade or longer have had
    > the same IP address as default router. Somehow proponents of RA claim
    > that it is very important to have fate sharing. Even though in practice

I think that this is an unfair generalization.
It's certainly true for many hosts.

There are many kinds of networks and many kinds of hosts, and I think that we
are doing ourselves a disservice to try to hit them all with the same hammer.

    > this does not offer anything to hosts. The fate sharing provided by a
    > router not sending RAs happens on a time scale (tens of minutes) that
    > is not suitable for today's environment. In practice, hosts have to
    > rely on reachability etection in ND to determine if a default router
    > can be used or not.

    > So instead of creating operational flexiblity where operators can
    > decide how to run their networks, the result of this working group
    > seems to be to try to kill all concepts that don't fit into the RA
    > mold.

I think that's an unfair characterization of the WG.
It does look that way by message count, but I think that we have some very
loud individuals.

    > In don't think this draft is a solution though. We need well thought
    > out and well written standards. Not an openended system where the real
    > protocol is just a custom created by dominant parties.

I don't really know how universal-ra has anything to do with DHCP vs RA.
universal-ra is about being able to do experiments or other minor things in
RA space without having to wait three years for your router vendor to include

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide