IPv6 Confusion

Wed Feb 18 22:11:01 UTC 2009

In a message written on Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 01:39:57PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If
> anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify
> it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has
> resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because nobody
> stood up and did the work to make it happen.

The last time I "participated" a working group chair told me
"operators don't know what they are talking about" and went on to
say they should be ignored.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090218/4d142c21/attachment.sig>