On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a feater told the rest of the group "He's an operator and thus doesn't understand how any of this works, ignore him." That's when I gave up on the IETF, and started working on my vendor for the solution.
It's popped around multiple times. The drafts won't stop until it's implemented. The lack of it in DHCPv6, despite obvious desire for it, seems to indicate a bias on the part of the IETF.
The interesting thing is that while the IETF may have a certain bias, the hardware manufacturers have a different bias; they do what needs to be done to sell hardware. And while we may be 'just operators', if we tell vendors we won't buy their hardware unless they support draft-X-Y-Z, you can believe they'll listen to that a lot more closely than they will the IETF. The IETF has teeth only so long as those with money to spend on vendors support their decisions. When a vendor is forced to choose between complying with the IETF, or getting a $5M purchase order from a customer, they're going to look long and hard at what the customer is requesting. We've gotten knobs added to software that go explicitly against standards that way; they're off by default, they're hidden, and they have ugly names like "enable broken-ass-feature-for-customer-X" but the vendors *do* put them in, because without them, they don't get paid. Matt
Here's a current draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-05
Jack