[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Nat


On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
<nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>>> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only.
>>
>> this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.
>
>Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting!
>
>> load of crap.
>>
>> make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise.  repeat the
>> previous sentence 42 times.
>
>
>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around
>to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6
>when it comes to DHCP.  The stance of not
>allowing the DHCP server to assign a default
>gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling
>point for at least one large enterprise I'm aware
>of. 


Tell me again why you want this, and not routing information from the
router?


> Right now, the biggest obstacle to IPv6
>deployment seems to be the ivory-tower types
>in the IETF that want to keep it pristine, vs
>allowing it to work in the real world.

There?s a mix of people at IETF, but more operator input there would be
helpful. I have a particular draft in mind that is stuck between ?we?d
rather delay IPv6 than do it wrong? and ?be realistic about how people
will deploy it."

Lee