On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush <randy@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.
There¹s 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 ³we¹d rather delay IPv6 than do it wrong² and ³be realistic about how people will deploy it." Lee