[128704] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightly used IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Aug 14 15:21:15 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <7464FE7B-5A98-4657-884C-E5BCB2B391FF@bogus.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:17:43 -0700
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think you mistake my meaning. I don't regard RA and SLAAC as a =
problem. I regard their limited capabilities as a minor issue. I regard =
the IETF religion that insists on preventing DHCPv6 from having a =
complete set of capabilities for some form of RA protectionism to be the =
largest problem. That was my meaning for RA religion.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>=20
>> The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI =
for
>> end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs.
>> The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal 2002-3.
>>=20
>> The RA religion still hasn't been solved.
>=20
> Neither for that matter has the dhcp religion. Autoconfiguration and =
bootstrapping were not solved problems for ipv4 inn 1994 and in some =
respects still aren't. The mind boggles that we consider the ipv4 =
situation so much better than the v6 case...
>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
