Nick Hilliard nick at
Sat Dec 19 16:17:30 UTC 2015

Sander Steffann wrote:
> So yes, people have to deploy IPv6 as soon as possible, but it's not
> the job of the IETF to fix all of the obstacles.

What we need is for the IETF to stop being an obstacle.

More to the point, as the IETF's opinion is based on the consensus of
its working groups, it would help if specific people in a small number
of IETF working groups stopped doing everything within their power to
prevent dhcpv6 from becoming feature complete.

Unfortunately, this turned into a religious war a long time ago and the
primary consideration with regard to dhcpv6 has not been what's best for
ipv6 or ipv6 users or ipv6 operators, but ensuring that dhcpv6 is
sufficiently crippled as a protocol that it cannot be deployed without
RA due to lack of features.

It will happen, sooner or later.  One of the large vendors is eventually
going to make a corporate decision that the current situation is stupid
and will come up with vendor specific extensions to dhcpv6 to make it a
standalone protocol.  Due to their size, everyone else will be forced to
implement this standard.  It's just a pity we can't set out and make a
compatible standard on day 1, or even year 19.


More information about the NANOG mailing list