IPv6 Confusion

Daniel Senie dts at senie.com
Wed Feb 18 22:13:08 UTC 2009

Tony Hain wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> ...
>> But, when DHCPv6 was developed the "great minds of the world" decided
>> less functionality was better.  There /IS NO OPTION/ to send a default
>> route in DHCPv6, making DHCPv6 fully dependant on RA's being turned on!
>> So the IETF and other great minds have totally removed the capability
>> for operators to work around this problem.
> 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.

Because clearly everything done in IPv4 space was crap, or should be
assumed to be crap. Therefore, everything that's been worked out and
made to function well in the last 25+ years in IPv4 space should be
tossed and re-engineered. OSI anyone?

The point, which seems to elude many, is that rightly or wrongly there
is an assumption that going from IPv4 to IPv6 should not involve a step
back in time, not on  security, not on central configuration capability,
not on the ability to multihome, and so forth. The rude awakening is
that the IPv6 evangelists insisting everyone should "get with the
program" failed to understand that the community at large would expect
equivalent or better functionality.

Ultimately the only bit of light emerging above all the heat generated
by this thread is a simple observation: "Engineers make lousy salespeople."

Daniel Senie                                        dts at senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com

    Kindness in words creates confidence.
      Kindness in thinking creates profoundness.
        Kindness in giving creates love. -- Lao Tsu

More information about the NANOG mailing list