[118411] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Oct 21 16:13:06 2009
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F6240AF0-ECCF-446A-83D3-8EBB121D468F@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:08:13 +0200
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 21 okt 2009, at 21:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
> However, making it available as an option in DHCPv6 allows the end-
> user/operator
> to choose the technology that fits their needs best. I do not know
> why you are so
> determined to prevent this choice at the operator level.
For the same reason that we don't let the kids play with the
powertools: giving them what they want here just makes everything end
in tears.
If people want to run DHCPv6, fine, we're all adults. If they want to
go to the IETF and fix what's wrong with DHCPv6, so much the better.
But taking the information from the place where we can make sure it's
correct and putting it in a place where we can only guess so we break
the network regularly is A VERY BAD IDEA.
