Re: quietly....

[John Payne <john () sackheads org>]

On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote:
>
> > > > DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it.
>
> > > If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be right.
>
> > Hey, I thought you wanted ops input... Here you are getting it, and look, here all you are doing is saying that its 
> > wrong.
>
> I said the IETF wants input.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the IETF. I don't represent them in any way. I'm not even a working group chair. 
> I've gone to a bunch of meetings, spent way too much time on IETF mailinglists and co-wrote all of one RFCs.

You may not represent the IETF, but you are representative of the attitude of the IETF.

> I read some great writing advice once. It applies to much more than just writing. It goes like this: whenever a 
> reader tells you that there's something wrong with your book, there is something wrong with your book. But if they 
> tell you how to fix it, they're pretty much always wrong.

There's something wrong with your attitude towards operators.
There's a lot wrong with the IETF attitude towards operators, but you're here :)


> I'm not part of the DHC working group and I'm not a big DHCP user myself, so I don't claim to know the issues that 
> exist with DHCPv6 in the operational community. But I'm sure there are some valid issues there. However, I'm equally 
> sure that adding IPv4-DHCP-style router addresses to DHCPv6 is a big mistake that will create a lot of operational 
> problems. Maybe not in the networks of the people that want this feature, but the problems will be there.

Having machines listen to any RA they receive is _today_ a cause of a lot of operational problems.  Why do we need 
mommy-IETF telling us no for default routes in DHCP but letting RAs run wild?
Why does the mere mention of NAT cause daddy-IETF to round up the troops and insist that everyone is wrong?