[118481] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Thu Oct 22 11:23:51 2009
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AE07444.2000905@kl.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:22:50 -0700
To: Kevin Loch <kloch@kl.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Ok, lets start with not breaking the functionality we have today
> in IPv4. Once you get that working again we can look at new
> ideas (like RA) that might have utility. Let the new stuff live/die on
> it's own merits. The Internet is very good at sorting out the useful
> technology from the crap.
Right. I'll admit some confusion here. If the IETF, due to religion or =
aesthetics, is blocking attempts at making DHCPv6 do what network =
operators _need_ (as opposed to want), why haven't network operators =
routed around the problem and gone and funded folks like ISC, NLNetLabs, =
Cisco, Juniper, et al., to implement what they need? =20
> At conferences I keep hearing "It would be great if the IETF had
> more operator input." Yet whenever we try to provide operationally
> useful advice we are ridiculed for not being smart enough to know
> how things should work.
>=20
> How do we fix that?
You seem to be asking "how do we make people not stupid". Folks tend to =
simplify reality so that it fits their world view. Stupid people =
attempt to force that simplified reality onto others. You can either =
play their game, attempting to get them to understand reality is often =
more complicated than we'd like, or route around them. Or you can post =
to NANOG... :-)
Regards,
-drc
