nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: John Schnizlein <schnizlein () isoc org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:21:30 -0500
On 2009Feb18, at 5:11 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 01:39:57PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because nobodystood up and did the work to make it happen.The last time I "participated" a working group chair told me "operators don't know what they are talking about" and went on to say they should be ignored.
This is a problem to be fixed. If you like we can discuss the details of how to fix it in San Francisco next month.
John
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion (back to technical conversation) TJ (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Aria Stewart (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Kevin Loch (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Joel Jaeggli (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion John Schnizlein (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Joel Jaeggli (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Marshall Eubanks (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Merike Kaeo (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Sandy Murphy (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jared Mauch (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 19)