On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Daniel Senie wrote:
... No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because nobody stood 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 ...
and ipv4 didnt stop evolving when ipv6 started being designed/engineered/'architected'. If new use cases, or different business cases were evolved in th ev4 world, it seems that those should have also trickled back into the v6 work. That does not seem to have been the case, multihoming is but one example of this.
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
how many vendors are implementing willy-nilly v4 feature requests for their enterprise/isp customers? does it not seem reasonable to look at each one and say: "Gosh, if you want a TE knob for v4,surely you'll want that in v6 'soon' yes?" (replace TE knob with ... us about every other knob requested actually). The arguement that 'You have to ask for v6 knobs the exist in v4 else they won't happen' flies in the face of the arguement that: "People don't want v4 or v6, they just want IP connectivity." This doesn't exactly follow for the IETF process, though it really ought to for a goodly number of things. If you are using something in v4, and it got added via the consensus process in the IETF, it's very likely that you will need like functionality in v6. DHCP and Multihoming are just 2 simple examples of this. I still can't see how: "but v6 has autoconf so you don't need dhcp!" is even attempted as an argument after 1996. Surely vendors of networking gear and consumer OS's realized before 1996 that things other than 'address and default route' are important to end stations?? I know these entities use other features in their enterprise networks...
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
I thougth EU also was spending on v6? -chris