[136287] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Feb 2 06:20:24 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D48E558.7070805@brightok.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 03:18:01 -0800
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 9:51 PM, Dave Israel wrote:
>> They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and =
purists, and opposed by operators.
>=20
> You mean like the lack of Default Router in DHCPv6?
>=20
The whole SLAAC vs. DHCPv6 argument is a complete debacle.
What IETF should have done there is provide two complete protocols that =
operators could make the choice
or combination of choices that worked best for them.
Instead, the two camps spent so much time and energy disrupting the =
other protocol that instead, we have
two completely incomplete protocols and you need to use a weird =
combination of the two just to get basic
functionality. There is ongoing work to complete them both now that =
operators have noticed, but, it is
unfortunate this was so badly delayed.
> Don't get me wrong. I love RA. However, it is NOT a universal tool, =
and there are cases where Default Router via DHCPv6 would be more =
appropriate and easier to manage.
>=20
Yep.
This is an example of a missing feature.
I'm in complete agreement.
NAT66 is different. NAT66 breaks things in ways that impact sites =
outside of the site choosing to deploy NAT.
Owen
