Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison-00.txt (fwd)

[Matthew Petach <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Jan 8, 2014, at 9:56 PM, Matthew Petach <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 4 groups of hosts on the subnet;
> > groupA, groupB, groupC, groupD;
> > four different policies on the DHCP server.
> > subnet has 4 different upstream routers.
> > groupA is handed IP address on routerA as default gateway
> > groupB is handed IP address on routerB as default gateway
> > groupC is handed IP address on routerC as default gateway
> > groupD is handed IP address on routerD as default gateway
> >
> > all four groups are within the same L2 broadcast domain,
> > and have applications that make use of that same-subnet
> > relationship.
>
> So is the problem you are trying to solve here essentially a cheap SDN
> solution?   Why not simply isolate the four groups of hosts onto four
> separate VLANs?
>
>
That would either require rewriting the applications running on the
hosts to use unicast communication between them, with a
corresponding increase in the volume of traffic, or implement
some scheme for handling non-unicast frames between
VLANs that I'm not currently aware of.

I realize this setup isn't typical; but it's there, and I find it
odd that the reaction from the community seems to be
"people should stop trying to stretch the lifespan of
IPv4 and just move to IPv6" at the same time saying
"you should stop doing things the v4 way, and change
your mindset and topology to match the v6 way".

The more impediments and roadblocks there
are to seamlessly converting from v4 to v6 there
are, the less incentive there is to move away from
v4, and the longer it is we'll continue to have v4-only
sites on the internet...which will continue to ensure
that the v6-only internet can never become reality.

As long as we're OK with v6 being a cute side project,
and not a fully functional replacement for v4, that's
a fine mindset to have.  But if we're serious about
wanting to move the Internet wholesale to v6, we
need to ease up a bit on this whole "If you won't
convert to the One True V6 Way, you should just
stay on v4" mantra.  I get that what we're doing in
the v4 world can't currently be done in the v6 world.
What I don't understand is why there's so much
resistance to making it possible to do it in the v6 world?

Matt