owen at delong.com
Wed Feb 2 05:18:01 CST 2011
On Feb 1, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 9:51 PM, Dave Israel wrote:
>> They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and purists, and opposed by operators.
> You mean like the lack of Default Router in DHCPv6?
The whole SLAAC vs. DHCPv6 argument is a complete debacle.
What IETF should have done there is provide two complete protocols that operators could make the choice
or combination of choices that worked best for them.
Instead, the two camps spent so much time and energy disrupting the other protocol that instead, we have
two completely incomplete protocols and you need to use a weird combination of the two just to get basic
functionality. There is ongoing work to complete them both now that operators have noticed, but, it is
unfortunate this was so badly delayed.
> Don't get me wrong. I love RA. However, it is NOT a universal tool, and there are cases where Default Router via DHCPv6 would be more appropriate and easier to manage.
This is an example of a missing feature.
I'm in complete agreement.
NAT66 is different. NAT66 breaks things in ways that impact sites outside of the site choosing to deploy NAT.
More information about the NANOG