[167827] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: turning on comcast v6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 30 16:48:04 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <0CC9EF26-1B77-4990-8B29-A55085ABE385@ufp.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 13:43:16 -0800
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.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 30, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
>=20
>> 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?
>=20
> Why must the people who want it justify to _you_?
In a consensus process, it is not unusual or uncommon for the group to =
expect a justification for a topic seeking consensus.
> 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?
To the best of my knowledge, those same questions have been asked about =
all of the IPv4 protocols in the IETF development process, too.
If he wants to just go mod his DHCP daemons, he=92s welcome to do that. =
If he wants IETF consensus around a change to the DHCP protocol, then =
it=92s not at all unreasonable for him to have to justify that position =
to the IETF.
> 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.
Sure, but here=92s where you break down=85
The current situation isn=92t attributable to =93the current IPv6 crowd=94=
(whoever that is), it=92s the current IETF consensus position. Changing =
that IETF consensus position is a matter of going through the IETF =
process and getting a new consensus. That requires justifying your =
position and convincing enough people willing to actively participate in =
the working group process of that position.
I like to think that I would be part of almost any valid definition of =
=93the current IPv6 crowd=94. While I do think that RAs are a better =
mechanism for most situations, I also support the inclusion of =
information equivalent to RIOs in DHCP options.
> 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.
It shouldn=92t be one stupid field, even if we do put it in. It should =
be an additional option for providing zero or more RIOs.
> What is more important fast IPv6 adoption or belittling people who =
want to=20
> deploy it in some slightly different way than you did?
I do not think it is legitimate to say that asking for justification for =
a position is belittling.
Owen
