[118786] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Oct 28 20:31:19 2009
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AE8DD38.3030902@internode.com.au>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:27:54 -0700
To: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc@internode.com.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is unusual, but, I have to agree with Randy here.
Owen
On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Amen to that Randy.
>
> MMC
>
> Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
>>>> advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards
>>>> packets
>>>> makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
>>>>
>>> No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and
>>> DHCP for
>>> v6, so that everyone who has extracted any value from DHCP in
>>> their toolkit
>>> can continue to do so, and roll out v6 !
>>>
>>
>> no. what we need is more religious v6 fanatics to make use of v6
>> hard
>> to roll out on existing networks. after all, v6 is soooo wonderful
>> we
>> should be happy to double our opex for the privilege of using such a
>> fantastic protocol.
>>
>> v6 fanaticism has done vastly more damage to v6 deployment than the
>> v6
>> haters. arrogance kills.
>>
>> randy
>>
>>
