IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses

Fri Oct 22 16:37:15 UTC 2010

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
>> point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
>> feater told the rest of the group "He's an operator and thus doesn't
>> understand how any of this works, ignore him."  That's when I gave up
>> on the IETF, and started working on my vendor for the solution.
>>
> It's popped around multiple times. The drafts won't stop until it's
> implemented. The lack of it in DHCPv6, despite obvious desire for it, seems
> to indicate a bias on the part of the IETF.

The interesting thing is that while the IETF may  have a certain bias, the
hardware manufacturers have a different bias; they do what needs to be
done to sell hardware.  And while we may be 'just operators', if we tell
vendors we won't buy their hardware unless they support draft-X-Y-Z,
you can believe they'll listen to that a lot more closely than they will
the IETF.

The IETF has teeth only so long as those with money to spend on
vendors support their decisions.  When a vendor is forced to choose
between complying with the IETF, or getting a $5M purchase order
from a customer, they're going to look long and hard at what the
customer is requesting.  We've gotten knobs added to software
that go explicitly against standards that way; they're off by default,
they're hidden, and they have ugly names like "enable
broken-ass-feature-for-customer-X"
but the vendors *do* put them in, because without them, they don't
get paid.

Matt

> Here's a current draft
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-05
>
> Jack