quietly....

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Wed Feb 2 14:12:12 CST 2011


On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote:

>>> DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it.

>> If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be right.

> Hey, I thought you wanted ops input... Here you are getting it, and look, here all you are doing is saying that its wrong.

I said the IETF wants input.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the IETF. I don't represent them in any way. I'm not even a working group chair. I've gone to a bunch of meetings, spent way too much time on IETF mailinglists and co-wrote all of one RFCs.

I read some great writing advice once. It applies to much more than just writing. It goes like this: whenever a reader tells you that there's something wrong with your book, there is something wrong with your book. But if they tell you how to fix it, they're pretty much always wrong.

I'm not part of the DHC working group and I'm not a big DHCP user myself, so I don't claim to know the issues that exist with DHCPv6 in the operational community. But I'm sure there are some valid issues there. However, I'm equally sure that adding IPv4-DHCP-style router addresses to DHCPv6 is a big mistake that will create a lot of operational problems. Maybe not in the networks of the people that want this feature, but the problems will be there.

Coming to the IETF to have your solution rubberstamped invariably leads to disappointment. Go there to tell them about your problem. That works much better.

But sending _me_ your input doesn't seem to make either of us happier.



More information about the NANOG mailing list