[136370] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed Feb 2 15:12:18 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <53820806-5EF6-4E8D-900C-CDBEDB097E2E@sackheads.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:12:12 +0100
To: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote:
>>> DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it.
>> If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be right.
> Hey, I thought you wanted ops input... Here you are getting it, and =
look, here all you are doing is saying that its wrong.
I said the IETF wants input.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the IETF. I don't represent them in =
any way. I'm not even a working group chair. I've gone to a bunch of =
meetings, spent way too much time on IETF mailinglists and co-wrote all =
of one RFCs.
I read some great writing advice once. It applies to much more than just =
writing. It goes like this: whenever a reader tells you that there's =
something wrong with your book, there is something wrong with your book. =
But if they tell you how to fix it, they're pretty much always wrong.
I'm not part of the DHC working group and I'm not a big DHCP user =
myself, so I don't claim to know the issues that exist with DHCPv6 in =
the operational community. But I'm sure there are some valid issues =
there. However, I'm equally sure that adding IPv4-DHCP-style router =
addresses to DHCPv6 is a big mistake that will create a lot of =
operational problems. Maybe not in the networks of the people that want =
this feature, but the problems will be there.
Coming to the IETF to have your solution rubberstamped invariably leads =
to disappointment. Go there to tell them about your problem. That works =
much better.
But sending _me_ your input doesn't seem to make either of us happier.=
