turning on comcast v6

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 30 21:43:16 UTC 2013


On Dec 30, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> 
> 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_?

In a consensus process, it is not unusual or uncommon for the group to expect a justification for a topic seeking consensus.

> 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?

To the best of my knowledge, those same questions have been asked about all of the IPv4 protocols in the IETF development process, too.

If he wants to just go mod his DHCP daemons, he’s welcome to do that. If he wants IETF consensus around a change to the DHCP protocol, then it’s not at all unreasonable for him to have to justify that position to the IETF.

> 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.

Sure, but here’s where you break down…

The current situation isn’t attributable to “the current IPv6 crowd” (whoever that is), it’s the current IETF consensus position. Changing that IETF consensus position is a matter of going through the IETF process and getting a new consensus. That requires justifying your position and convincing enough people willing to actively participate in the working group process of that position.

I like to think that I would be part of almost any valid definition of “the current IPv6 crowd”. While I do think that RAs are a better mechanism for most situations, I also support the inclusion of information equivalent to RIOs in DHCP options.

> 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.

It shouldn’t be one stupid field, even if we do put it in. It should be an additional option for providing zero or more RIOs.

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

I do not think it is legitimate to say that asking for justification for a position is belittling.

Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list