Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers

> In places where you need tighter control over the usage
of various  
> gateways
> on a common L2 segment, VRRP probably makes more sense.
 However,
> as things currently stand, that means static routing
configuration on  
> the host
> since for reasons passing understanding, DHCP6
specifically won't do
> gateway assignment.

For those of us with lots of IPv4 customers dependent on
DHCP, it would
be good to know more detail about this point. What is the
problem, and
are there plans to do anything about it in DHCPv6?

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaugnethelp.no

Thus spake <sthaugnethelp.no>
>> In places where you need tighter control over the
usage of various
>> gateways on a common L2 segment, VRRP probably
makes more
>> sense.  However, as things currently stand, that
means static routing
>> configuration on the host since for reasons passing
understanding,
>> DHCP6 specifically won't do gateway assignment.
>
> For those of us with lots of IPv4 customers dependent
on DHCP, it
> would be good to know more detail about this point.
What is the
> problem, and are there plans to do anything about it in
DHCPv6?

For most hosts, there is no need for anything like VRRP or
getting a default 
gateway via DHCP in v6 because all hosts are required to
implement RA/RS. 
The vast majority of hosts either have one default gateway
or two-plus 
equivalent ones, so that works fine.  For hosts with
multiple gateways that 
are unequal, VRRP+DHCP doesn't solve the problem any better
than RA/RS; you 
have to fiddle with the hosts' routing tables to get things
set up right.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice." 
--Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and
He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity."
--Stephen Hawking