nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 Confusion
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:30:38 -0800
Daniel Senie wrote:
... No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap fromIPv4. Ifanyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do isspecifyit. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in theIETF hasresulted in the situation where functionality is missing, becausenobodystood up and did the work to make it happen.Because clearly everything done in IPv4 space was crap, or should be assumed to be crap. Therefore, everything that's been worked out and made to function well in the last 25+ years in IPv4 space should be tossed and re-engineered. OSI anyone?
That is not what the decision said. The point was that the DHCP WG was not going to decide for you what was necessary or appropriate to carry forward. Rather than add baggage that nobody actually uses, there is nothing until someone says 'I need that'. Never mind that DHCP wasn't defined when the IPng work started, and wasn't in widespread use yet when DHCPv6 was being started ...
The point, which seems to elude many, is that rightly or wrongly there is an assumption that going from IPv4 to IPv6 should not involve a step back in time, not on security, not on central configuration capability, not on the ability to multihome, and so forth. The rude awakening is that the IPv6 evangelists insisting everyone should "get with the program" failed to understand that the community at large would expect equivalent or better functionality.
Yes people expect 1:1 functionality, but how many of them are stepping up to the table with $$$ to make that happen... In the US, it is only the DoD. In the ISP space, most of it comes from Japan. If you are not finding what you want, put money in front of a vendor and see what happens... ;)
Ultimately the only bit of light emerging above all the heat generated by this thread is a simple observation: "Engineers make lousy salespeople."
;) Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Merike Kaeo (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Sandy Murphy (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jared Mauch (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Leo Bicknell (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Marshall Eubanks (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Sandy Murphy (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Daniel Senie (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mohacsi Janos (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jack Bates (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion sthaug (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Owen DeLong (Feb 18)