nanog mailing list archives
Re: Nat
From: Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:39:28 -0800
On 12/18/2015 01:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
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?
C'mon Lee, stop pretending that you're interested in the answer to this question, and wasting everyone's time in the process. You know the answers, just as well as the people who would give them.
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."
On this topic the operator input has been clear for over a decade, and yet the purists have blocked progress this whole time. The biggest roadblock to IPv6 deployment are its most ardent "supporters."