nanog mailing list archives
RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)]
From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:43:48 -0500
as I've said a few times now, reason #775 that autoconf is a broken and
non-
useful 'gadget' for network operators. There is a system today that does lots of client-conf (including the simple default-route + dns-server) called DHCP, there MUST be a similarly featured system in the 'new world order' of ipv6. This really is non-negotiable, why are people still holding out hope that autoconf is 'enough' when users and operators have so clearly said otherwise?
There IS a similarly featured system. Why is it so hard to accept that in MANY cases SLAAC is enough (especially when RFC5006 is more widely supported, or while IPv4 is still around to cheat off of (glaring at WinXP)) ... and when it isn't enough, or when you feel like doing more DHCPv6 is there waiting for you? Almost no one is arguing that DHCPv6 can't exist, shouldn't exist, etc. Perhaps with the exception of Apple, that is - and that is still OK! I certainly see value in DHCPv6, but I see value in SLAAC as well. I don't want to force anyone to not do DHCPv6, why do others want to force me to do DHCPv6? Can't we all just get along?
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)], (continued)
- 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)
- 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)] Christopher Morrow (Feb 09)
- 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)] Jamie Bowden (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)] Christopher Morrow (Feb 06)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)] TJ (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)] TJ (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Simon Lyall (Feb 05)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Seth Mattinen (Feb 04)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Michael K. Smith - Adhost (Feb 04)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Nathan Ward (Feb 04)