[136157] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Tue Feb 1 15:50:04 2011
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:51:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4D4870B8.4010809@otd.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dave Israel wrote:
> I completely agree that, when interoperating, you have to follow the rules,
> and I would (naively) hope that "customers cannot reach me because of my
> configuration choice" is sufficient incentive to fix the problem for the
> majority of network operators. But what I am arguing against was the stance
> some people take against DHCPv6, or prefix lengths longer than /64, or other
> internal-to-my-network, why-should-you-care choices I might make. Telling me
> it is dumb is fine; implementing software/hardware/protocols such that I
> can't do it simply because you think it is dumb is a problem.
DHCPv6 can have a very valid and useful place in the overall scheme of
things, in terms of managing address assignments. I've been somewhat
disappointed that it's taken this long to see the light of day.
jms
