Re: Nat

[Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>]

On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
<nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of mpetach () netflight com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
> > > We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
> >
> > this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.
>
> Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting!
>
> > load of crap.
> >
> > make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise.  repeat the
> > previous sentence 42 times.
>
>
> I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
> to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
> when it comes to DHCP.  The stance of not
> allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
> gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling
> point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware
> of. 


Tell me again why you want this, and not routing information from the
router?


> Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6
> deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types
> in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs
> allowing it to work in the real world.

There¹s a mix of people at IETF, but more operator input there would be
helpful. I have a particular draft in mind that is stuck between ³we¹d
rather delay IPv6 than do it wrong² and ³be realistic about how people
will deploy it."

Lee