john at sackheads.org
Wed Feb 2 13:30:23 CST 2011
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2 feb 2011, at 4:51, Dave Israel wrote:
>> They were features dreamed up by academics, theoreticians, and purists, and opposed by operators.
> Contrary to popular belief, the IETF listens to operators and wants them to participate. Few do. For instance, I don't seem to remember your name from any IETF mailinglists. (I could be mistaken, though.)
From personal experience, the only reason die-hard IETF folk want operators to participate on IETF lists is so that they can tell them that they're wrong on IETF mailing lists as opposed to operator mailing lists.
> Example: if you give administrators the option of putting a router address in a DHCP option, they will do so and some fraction of the time, this will be the wrong address and things don't work. If you let routers announce their presence, then it's virtually impossible that something goes wrong because routers know who they are. A clear win. Of course it does mean that people <gasp> have to learn something new when adopting IPv6.
Is anyone else reading this and the word "condescending" _not_ popping into their heads?
More information about the NANOG