IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Fri Oct 30 01:16:00 UTC 2009

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:40:46 +0900
Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> 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.

As does excessive pessimism.

More information about the NANOG mailing list