[136365] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Feb 2 14:45:41 2011
To: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:30:23 EST."
<5CB621E0-1873-47DC-B4EE-A5E2D6E5D5B4@sackheads.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:42:23 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1296675743_5545P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:30:23 EST, John Payne said:
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > Example: if you give administrators the option of putting a router
> > address in a DHCP option, they will do so and some fraction of the time,
> > this will be the wrong address and things don't work. If you let routers
> > announce their presence, then it's virtually impossible that something
> > goes wrong because routers know who they are. A clear win. Of course it
> > does mean that people <gasp> have to learn something new when adopting
> > IPv6.
> Is anyone else reading this and the word "condescending" _not_ popping
> into their heads?
The only other charitable conclusion I can draw is "Somebody hasn't spent time
chasing down people with misconfigured laptops on the wireless who are squawking
RA's for 2002:"
There's a *big* operational difference between "all authorized and properly configured
routers know who they are" and "all nodes that think they're routers (deluded though
they may be) know who they are".
--==_Exmh_1296675743_5545P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNSbOfcC3lWbTT17ARAooxAJ0Xi64hVZCWSAUm7POLWWMbXq+SpQCg1A8/
13lCyHxjUo6T2YeWTM/Ehsw=
=3Woe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1296675743_5545P--
