On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:58:06 -0400, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jon Bane <jon@nnbfn.net> wrote:
DHCPv6 - RFC3315 - Category: Standards Track 464XLAT - RFC6877 - Category: Informational
Ooo, that's fun, can I play too?
We aren't asking you to support BGP, or SNMP. We're DEMANDING you support a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT of IPv6. DHCPv6 is not *optional*. And every reason you've given to date sounds like a whiny I-Don't-Like-It political agenda. The fact that others have made it work is proof of your asshattery. This has been going around for **YEARS**. You've spent orders of magnitude more time defending your "no" position than it would take to actually include DHCPv6 support. In *two days* of bitching on NANOG, every one of your positions has been shot down, and solutions to every corner case has been presented -- sure, the network policy could still render things non-workable (no PD, only one address, etc.) Will IPv4 only apps work with only one v6 address, no. (or "not easily") But then, IPv4 isn't IPv6; any kludge to get one to work within the other is 100% BS hackery (because no one thought about migration or interoperability. dual-stack was declared the answer, and the WG patted themselves on the back.) Given the choice of ZERO network access, or ("legacy" ???) IPv4 only apps not working, I'll take the later. The people in charge of those lacking apps need to fix their shit.