turning on comcast v6

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Mon Dec 30 16:19:56 UTC 2013


On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard <Lee at asgard.org> wrote:

> Why?
> You say, "The protocol suite doesn't meet my needs; I need default gateway
> in DHCPv6."  So the IETF WG must change for you to deploy IPv6.  Why?

Why must the people who want it justify to _you_?

This is fundamental part I've not gotten about the IPv6 crowd.  IPv4 got to
where it is by letting people extend it and develop new protocols and solutions.
DHCP did not exist when IPv4 was created, it was tacked on later.  Now
people want to tack something on to IPv6 to make it more useful to them.
Why do they need to explain it to you, if it doesn't affect your deployments
at all?

Some of us think the model where a DHCP server knows the subnet and hands out
a default gateway provides operational advantages.  It's an opinion.  And the
current IPv6 crowds view that not having a default route and relaying on RA's
is better is also an opinion.

We've spent years of wasted bits and oxygen on ONE STUPID FIELD IN DHCP.  Put
it in their, and let the market sort it out, unless you can justify some dire
harm from doing so.

What is more important fast IPv6 adoption or belittling people who want to 
deploy it in some slightly different way than you did?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/








More information about the NANOG mailing list