[167802] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Mon Dec 30 11:21:13 2013
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <CEDF00D7.3DAAC%Lee@asgard.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:19:56 -0600
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
Cc: Jamie Bowden <jamie@photon.com>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
> Why?
> You say, "The protocol suite doesn't meet my needs; I need default =
gateway
> in DHCPv6." So the IETF WG must change for you to deploy IPv6. Why?
Why must the people who want it justify to _you_?
This is fundamental part I've not gotten about the IPv6 crowd. IPv4 got =
to
where it is by letting people extend it and develop new protocols and =
solutions.
DHCP did not exist when IPv4 was created, it was tacked on later. Now
people want to tack something on to IPv6 to make it more useful to them.
Why do they need to explain it to you, if it doesn't affect your =
deployments
at all?
Some of us think the model where a DHCP server knows the subnet and =
hands out
a default gateway provides operational advantages. It's an opinion. =
And the
current IPv6 crowds view that not having a default route and relaying on =
RA's
is better is also an opinion.
We've spent years of wasted bits and oxygen on ONE STUPID FIELD IN DHCP. =
Put
it in their, and let the market sort it out, unless you can justify some =
dire
harm from doing so.
What is more important fast IPv6 adoption or belittling people who want =
to=20
deploy it in some slightly different way than you did?
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
