[AusNOG] [LINK] [ISOC-AU-mems] Happy Birthday ... AARNet

[Mark Smith]

Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Not sure about your argument.
> 
> The main problem is that at the moment that the standards that deliver 
> v6 broadband in a general sense are still all draft and, at the moment, 
> don't quite work together.  (Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but ONLY if 
> you can actually send me a complete set of receipes to do it as at least 
> one Broadband Forum member has told me it can't be done yet).  The main 
> sticking point is prefix delegation and how that works in an end-user's 
> network.
> 

What is the particular issue? Cisco routers support DHCP based prefix 
delegation, including automatically configuring downstream interfaces 
with the announced /48. It's a solved problem.


> Once this is fixed and people stop having pissing matches about who wins 
> (AutoConf, DHCPv6 etc) we'll be sweet and the CPE vendors can finish 
> their work.
> 

DHCPv6 is considered the most likely deployment model. RAs (i.e. 
AutoConf) are generally considered only to bootstrap basic IPv6 
networking, for any thing else e.g. NTP config, DNS servers, 
prefix-delegation etc. DHCPv6 is considered to be the advanced end-node 
configuration protocol.

There is some lobbying to "bloat" up RAs with these types of options, 
however I think it is probably because people are a bit set in their 
view that if you use DHCPv6 methods it means you have to set up a 
separate server to the router. Of course, DHCP doesn't require that, as 
plenty of ADSL CPE shows.

> (Yes, you can do this in the simple case with static ranges etc, but 
> that doesn't scale and doesn't work for normal people like my parents).
> 

What do you mean by doesn't scale and doesn't work for you parents?

> MMC
> 
> dasmo wrote:
>> Seems to me the problem is cash. ISPs won't eat it. Probably need it  
>> subsidised by the government. Some transit providers still aren't ipv6  
>> compatible, there's customer equiptment that needs to be replaced and  
>> there's no authority setting a deadline like the digital tv system.  
>> Plus, it's hard to explain the benefits to an end user who will most  
>> likely see the issues now rather than a solution to an issue from the  
>> future.
>>
>> Would be a better use of money than that stupid filter though.
>>
>> On 17/03/2009, at 16:57, Mark Smith <marksmith at adam.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> Geoff Huston wrote:
>>>     
>>>>> I specifically remember a slip connection to Hawaii growing from  
>>>>> 1200
>>>>> bps to 2400 bps preceeding the 56Kb frame relay connection.
>>>>>         
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>     
>>>> Yawn. That was years ago. On to today's problems. What are we going  
>>>> to
>>>> do given that noone is doing anything remotely serious in IPv6 and  
>>>> the
>>>> crunch time of IPv4 address exhaustion is getting ever closer? If we
>>>> can't manage to preserve some level of protocol coherence across the
>>>> network in the coming few years then we may end up not much better  
>>>> off
>>>> than the situation on 20 years ago. Or do we say goodbye to all this
>>>> end-to-end IP stuff and just run client sever over http and forget
>>>> than anything else was ever possible?
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> I don't think Internet end-users are aware of the problem, let a alone
>>> what it is, why its occurring, and what the consequences will be. They
>>> haven't been told what it is, and they don't know to ask for it.
>>>
>>> That seems to me to be a marketing problem. We need to get the message
>>> to the Internet end-user market that the Internet is heading towards a
>>> wall, and needs to be upgraded. We need to explain in very simple  
>>> terms,
>>> what the problem is - "The Internet is running out of phone numbers!"
>>> (and then explain that public Internet addresses are like phone  
>>> numbers)
>>> - I think should be a simple enough place to start.
>>>
>>> Who should run this campaign? ISOC or the IPv6 Forum (or both) I  
>>> reckon.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>     
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>   
>