[118429] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Wed Oct 21 19:59:21 2009
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:55:32 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <82B547ED-9637-4435-9F53-253551299555@muada.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:08:13PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 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.
so your not a fan of the smart edge and the stupid network.
--bill
