On 1/7/16, 7:39 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Doug Barton" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
On 12/18/2015 01:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach"
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?
C'mon Lee, stop pretending that you're interested in the answer to this question, and wasting everyone's time in the process. You know the answers, just as well as the people who would give them.
I’m flattered that you think I know so much. Jared gave a useful reply, and I’m doing research before writing an internet-draft.
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."
On this topic the operator input has been clear for over a decade, and yet the purists have blocked progress this whole time. The biggest roadblock to IPv6 deployment are its most ardent "supporters."
I don’t think IPv6 evangelists are in the way. I do think many enterprises don’t care about IPv6, and no protocol changes will make a difference. Some enterprise administrators wouldn’t mind deploying IPv6 as long as they don’t have to think about it. I think this is foolish: deploying a new Internet Protocol will not be simpler than deploying a new Spanning Tree or a new routing protocol. There are also enterprise administrators who have technical concerns; those are the ones I want to help. Lee