[136373] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Wed Feb 2 15:19:19 2011
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
In-Reply-To: <C0ABA810-71AA-4157-9288-63BAF72F5A58@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:18:55 -0500
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote:
>=20
>>>> DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it.
>=20
>>> If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be right.
>=20
>> Hey, I thought you wanted ops input... Here you are getting it, and =
look, here all you are doing is saying that its wrong.
>=20
> I said the IETF wants input.
>=20
> 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.
You may not represent the IETF, but you are representative of the =
attitude of the IETF.
>=20
> 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.
There's something wrong with your attitude towards operators.
There's a lot wrong with the IETF attitude towards operators, but you're =
here :)
> 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.
Having machines listen to any RA they receive is _today_ a cause of a =
lot of operational problems. Why do we need mommy-IETF telling us no =
for default routes in DHCP but letting RAs run wild?
Why does the mere mention of NAT cause daddy-IETF to round up the troops =
and insist that everyone is wrong?
