[186447] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Fri Dec 18 22:18:06 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:20:48 -0500
From: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oX3uf4OGg586SiBJxQDZoNurNicx-K0Ouaw0MESwwnNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
<nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>>
>> this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.
>
>Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting!
>
>> load of crap.
>>
>> make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the
>> previous sentence 42 times.
>
>
>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
>to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
>when it comes to DHCP. The stance of not
>allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
>gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling
>point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware
>of.=20
Tell me again why you want this, and not routing information from the
router?
> Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6
>deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types
>in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs
>allowing it to work in the real world.
There=B9s a mix of people at IETF, but more operator input there would be
helpful. I have a particular draft in mind that is stuck between =B3we=B9d
rather delay IPv6 than do it wrong=B2 and =B3be realistic about how people
will deploy it."
Lee
