IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 29 00:27:54 UTC 2009

This is unusual, but, I have to agree with Randy here.


On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

> Amen to that Randy.
> Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
>>>> advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards  
>>>> packets
>>>> makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
>>> No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and  
>>> DHCP for
>>> v6, so that everyone who has extracted any value from DHCP in  
>>> their toolkit
>>> can continue to do so, and roll out v6 !
>> no.  what we need is more religious v6 fanatics to make use of v6  
>> hard
>> to roll out on existing networks.  after all, v6 is soooo wonderful  
>> we
>> should be happy to double our opex for the privilege of using such a
>> fantastic protocol.
>> v6 fanaticism has done vastly more damage to v6 deployment than the  
>> v6
>> haters.  arrogance kills.
>> randy

More information about the NANOG mailing list