[147940] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Soucy)
Wed Dec 28 09:55:27 2011
In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnMH1ypnWzbd556Lr2J4=bCHR5sGPQ=b8Cs8g_s_Tu0jUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:54:37 -0500
From: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I mean no disrespect.
What I meant by that post was that I look forward to reading something
along the lines of:
----8<----
1. I believe RA should be moved to HISTORICAL status because of the
following concerns:
2. A better way to provide routing information to host systems would be:
----8<----
This would be far more productive than arguing line-by-line against
other statements without presenting what exactly it is that your
arguing in favor of.
Give us the big picture.
After reading some of your work on end-to-end multihoming, I think I
understand some of what you're trying to say. My problem is that
while you seem to have a very strong academic understanding of
networking, you seem to be ignoring operational realities in
implementation.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Masataka Ohta
> <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>> No counter argument possible against such abstract nonsense.
>
> Yes. =A0That was my point.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ray Soucy
>
> Epic Communications Specialist
>
> Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526
>
> Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
> http://www.networkmaine.net/
--=20
Ray Soucy
Epic Communications Specialist
Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526
Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/
