[118816] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Thu Oct 29 21:17:03 2009
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:46:00 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2hbtj5bpd.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:40:46 +0900
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> 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.
>
As does excessive pessimism.
