nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN


From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc () internode com au>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:28 +1030

Amen to that Randy.

MMC

Randy Bush wrote:
This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards packets
makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and DHCP for
v6, so that everyone who has extracted any value from DHCP in their toolkit
can continue to do so, and roll out v6 !

no.  what we need is more religious v6 fanatics to make use of v6 hard
to roll out on existing networks.  after all, v6 is soooo wonderful we
should be happy to double our opex for the privilege of using such a
fantastic protocol.

v6 fanaticism has done vastly more damage to v6 deployment than the v6
haters.  arrogance kills.

randy



Current thread: