nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Confusion


From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:11:01 -0500

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 nobody
stood 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.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Attachment: _bin
Description:


Current thread: