alh-ietf at tndh.net
Wed Feb 18 22:30:38 UTC 2009
Daniel Senie 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
> > it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the
> IETF has
> > resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because
> > 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?
That is not what the decision said. The point was that the DHCP WG was not
going to decide for you what was necessary or appropriate to carry forward.
Rather than add baggage that nobody actually uses, there is nothing until
someone says 'I need that'. Never mind that DHCP wasn't defined when the
IPng work started, and wasn't in widespread use yet when DHCPv6 was being
> 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
> 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.
Yes people expect 1:1 functionality, but how many of them are stepping up to
the table with $$$ to make that happen... In the US, it is only the DoD. In
the ISP space, most of it comes from Japan. If you are not finding what you
want, put money in front of a vendor and see what happens... ;)
> Ultimately the only bit of light emerging above all the heat generated
> by this thread is a simple observation: "Engineers make lousy
More information about the NANOG