nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins () isc org>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:59:33 -0800
I think this part of the thread is in danger of leaving the realm of operational relevance, so I will treat these as my closing arguments. On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:48:53PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It makes more sense to look at it like this. In the 1990s we had:
No, I think that "shopping checklist view" is exactly the kind of wrong thinking that stunts the dialogue between tools and needs, and has been a cause in IPv6's current disconnect in operational reality. So no, I don't think it makes any sense to look at it like that. It makes the most sense to look at the IPv4 configuration protocols alone as a progression of tools, each built upon what was learned from the prior, and the conclusions that were determined to work best for most of the Internet's operators (neither Appletalk's nor IPX's). These conclusions were proper supersets of previously determined operational needs, and so became a pervasively deployed universal solution. This is a functioning model for tool growth. Shopping checklists only create Frankenstein monsters, stunted half-breeds that serve only their creators.
RIP is a routing protocol, not an address configuration protocol.
This is a statement whose context predicates that you think I don't know that, which further confers that my intended message has been lost on you. This is far afield from the point! I am predisposed not to correct this, as the message was not intended for you, I hope this is mutually agreeable. :)
asking for security problems. Also, whenever you want to put something new in DHCP you must update the client and server SOFTWARE. Because on the
This actually is not true, which I have told you before. But I have to admit it is a nice contrived false factoid that supports your a-priori conclusions. My analysis of your further arguments is that you have selected a proper subset of actual Internet operational needs in order to further justify these same conclusions. I will leave it at that. :) -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems, (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Nathan Ward (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems sthaug (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 08)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems David W. Hankins (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Owen DeLong (Feb 06)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems James R. Cutler (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] David W. Hankins (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Ricky Beam (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Ricky Beam (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] TJ (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Ricky Beam (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Nathan Ward (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Christopher Morrow (Feb 09)