nanog mailing list archives
Re: Nat
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:17:30 +0000
Sander Steffann wrote:
So yes, people have to deploy IPv6 as soon as possible, but it's not the job of the IETF to fix all of the obstacles.
What we need is for the IETF to stop being an obstacle. More to the point, as the IETF's opinion is based on the consensus of its working groups, it would help if specific people in a small number of IETF working groups stopped doing everything within their power to prevent dhcpv6 from becoming feature complete. Unfortunately, this turned into a religious war a long time ago and the primary consideration with regard to dhcpv6 has not been what's best for ipv6 or ipv6 users or ipv6 operators, but ensuring that dhcpv6 is sufficiently crippled as a protocol that it cannot be deployed without RA due to lack of features. It will happen, sooner or later. One of the large vendors is eventually going to make a corporate decision that the current situation is stupid and will come up with vendor specific extensions to dhcpv6 to make it a standalone protocol. Due to their size, everyone else will be forced to implement this standard. It's just a pity we can't set out and make a compatible standard on day 1, or even year 19. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: Nat, (continued)
- Re: Nat 'Matt Palmer' (Dec 20)
- RE: Nat Jon Lewis (Dec 21)
- Re: Nat Mark Andrews (Dec 20)
- Re: Nat Lee Howard (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Randy Bush (Dec 17)
- Re: Nat Lee Howard (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Matthew Newton (Dec 18)
- Re: Nat Sander Steffann (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Jeff McAdams (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Sander Steffann (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Nick Hilliard (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Sander Steffann (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Jared Mauch (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Matthew Petach (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Sander Steffann (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Baldur Norddahl (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Matthew Newton (Dec 21)
- Re: Nat A . L . M . Buxey (Dec 21)
- Re: Nat Matthew Petach (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat James R Cutler (Dec 19)
- Re: Nat Nick Hilliard (Dec 19)