On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@colitti.com> wrote:
Ooo, that's fun, can I play too?
BGP - RFC 4271 - DRAFT STANDARD USM for SNMPv3 - RFC 3414 - INTERNET STANDARD
The difference being, my references were actually relevant to the discussion and a direct response to your arguments. Something something, two rights and wrongs. More importantly however, you have completely ignored, again, the solutions that people are presenting and continuing to hold that DHCPv6 == NAT. You are effectively saying that because YOU believe that DHCPv6 will lead to NAT (slippery-slope falacy), that the rest of us have to accept and design around it. That you are more right than the rest of us about what is appropriate for our networks and what meets our requirements. You build a client, not an architecture. If features are incompatible, try to innovate in the spirit of your employer. I want to believe that you are capable given the position you are in, but your steadfast hold on this equation is making that hard. When I build something I want people to use, I tend to put in the features they need and want so they continue to use it. It is crystal clear here and in the bug post, that people need DHCPv6 on WiFi. We don't need your guiding hand to protect us from ourselves. We need the tools to manage our environments to meet our requirements, not yours.