IPv6 Confusion

John Schnizlein schnizlein at isoc.org
Wed Feb 18 22:21:30 UTC 2009

On 2009Feb18, at 5:11 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> 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.

This is a problem to be fixed.  If you like we can discuss the details  
of how to fix it in San Francisco next month.


More information about the NANOG mailing list