[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ipng
Subject: Re: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum: Protocol-based improvements (Re: [v6ops] cpe-slaac-renum: Proposed
From: James R Cutler <james.cutler () consultant ! com>
Date: 2020-04-08 22:13:14
Message-ID: 96584BCF-4D9F-48A5-A681-DF59D8F44A86 () consultant ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
> On Apr 8, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>
> We have discussed this for over a year now. Ole has repeatedly argued that this is \
> not a problem, or that this is not a problem worth solving, because the networks \
> that face these problems suffer from the incompetence/lack of knowledge of their \
> admins/operators (even after multiple-statements from operators on why these \
> scenarios take place). He deems these occurrences as rare, while concrete data and \
> anecdotal evidence suggests 40% of deployments doing dynamic addresses. In such \
> scenarios, he argues that the user should switch ISPs, when in so many different \
> places I know of, there is no other ISP to switch to.
The suggestion to switch ISPs is ludicrous if the ‘ISP' is a corporate network.
Yet, I seldom hear any real business considerations. In my experience, large \
corporate networks maintain a division of both responsibility between routing \
configuration and end system configuration. Every ‘router engineer' I have worked \
with had to serve his management's desire for robust and reliable routing of packets \
in a manner completely orthogonal to end system configuration. Router firmware and \
configuration updates are considered to be a business risk to be minimized so adding \
miscellaneous options ND/RA is strongly discouraged. Conversely, management of \
services and end systems rarely even consider how packets are routed. Rather, \
services like print, ntp, DNS, email, file servers, and, even Windows Domain Servers \
are managed with a view to supporting business functions. Often, the business \
requirements of various internal divisions only overlap in the common routing domain \
and enterprise DNS root servers. Division management is often by local fiefdom with \
minimal concern for other divisions so local changes and optimizations are done \
independently, often at the whim of the current division leader.
The usual dialog between these two ‘worlds' revolves around the number of ethernet \
jacks and existence of DHCP forwarders with an occassional foray into capacity \
planning. So the existence of two tool sets to meet the differing needs should not be \
unexpected. RA's should provide all necessary routing information for stateless \
configuration of adjacent end systems. Differently, DHCPv6 and DHCP-PD are driven by \
business allocation of resources and must be allowed to exist in parallel to meet \
business requirements. Mixing router configuration and operation requirements with \
end system configuration and operation requirements by enforcing a single multi-tool \
for all may simplify life for some particular set of technicians, but in the end, it \
will make corporate management more complicated and expensive that it already has \
become.
[Attachment #5 (unknown)]
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; \
charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; \
line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div \
class="">On Apr 8, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Fernando Gont <<a \
href="mailto:fgont@si6networks.com" class="">fgont@si6networks.com</a>> \
wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span \
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; \
font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: \
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: \
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; \
float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">We have discussed this for over a \
year now. Ole has repeatedly argued that this is not a problem, or that this is not a \
problem worth solving, because the networks that face these problems suffer from the \
incompetence/lack of knowledge of their admins/operators (even after \
multiple-statements from operators on why these scenarios take place). He deems these \
occurrences as rare, while concrete data and anecdotal evidence suggests 40% of \
deployments doing dynamic addresses. In such scenarios, he argues that the user \
should switch ISPs, when in so many different places I know of, there is no other ISP \
to switch to.</span><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; \
font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; \
letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; \
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; \
text-decoration: none;" class=""></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>The \
suggestion to switch ISPs is ludicrous if the ‘ISP' is a corporate \
network. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Yet, I seldom hear any real business \
considerations. In my experience, large corporate networks maintain a division of \
both responsibility between routing configuration and end system configuration. Every \
‘router engineer' I have worked with had to serve his management's desire for \
robust and reliable routing of packets in a manner completely orthogonal to end \
system configuration. Router firmware and configuration updates are considered to be \
a business risk to be minimized so adding miscellaneous options ND/RA is strongly \
discouraged. Conversely, management of services and end systems rarely even consider \
how packets are routed. Rather, services like print, ntp, DNS, email, file servers, \
and, even Windows Domain Servers are managed with a view to supporting business \
functions. Often, the business requirements of various internal divisions only \
overlap in the common routing domain and enterprise DNS root servers. Division \
management is often by local fiefdom with minimal concern for other divisions so \
local changes and optimizations are done independently, often at the whim of the \
current division leader.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The usual dialog between \
these two ‘worlds' revolves around the number of ethernet jacks and existence of \
DHCP forwarders with an occassional foray into capacity planning. So the existence of \
two tool sets to meet the differing needs should not be unexpected. RA's should \
provide all necessary routing information for stateless configuration of adjacent end \
systems. Differently, DHCPv6 and DHCP-PD are driven by business allocation of \
resources and must be allowed to exist in parallel to meet business requirements. \
Mixing router configuration and operation requirements with end system configuration \
and operation requirements by enforcing a single multi-tool for all may simplify life \
for some particular set of technicians, but in the end, it will make corporate \
management more complicated and expensive that it already has become.</div><div><br \
class=""></div><div> </div><br class=""></body></html>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic