On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:18:02PM -0400, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Besides Alain Durand who has been asking for this potentially broken > idea to add a router option in DHCPv6, who else is a SP who asked for > this work? Speaking purely as a DHCPv6 software implementor, and an IPv6 operator you would no doubt believe to be of very little significance, I can say that Alain Durand is not the only operator who has requested this DHCPv6 software feature. It is quite a staggering number of operators who would prefer to run their networks in this way (or rather, who would prefer not to operate with RA), ranging from large to small. I can, but will not, name them. I do not think they signed up either for me to speak as their proxy, nor for them to be interrogated by you. They have day jobs. I think it is interesting that someone (was it David Thaler?) said at the microphone in INTAREA that "If it is the case that DHCPv6 must have feature parity with DHCPv4, then these options do not complete that requirement." I thought this was very insightful, and wholly true. I have information that other drafts are forthcoming. I think we are going to see a wave of work due to these operators that wish for IPv6 to be an equal-penalty upgrade, and not "lose features" by it. Said another way, it does not matter if IPv6 sucks equally to IPv4 (from their own personal point of view about how networks should be built), or has no compelling feature outside of address space to justify itself, it merely must not suck worse. We are going to see more efforts to make IPv6 "suck the same." > Alain and Ralph, please explain what is the > problem in the cable broadband network that this draft is needed? > Please be super specific as to what the problem is. I believe this discussion is reasonably fully, and appropriately provided in the draft's Introduction, and has been presented in full during the int-area (and I presume shortly the rtg-area) meeting. I do not think we will gain anything through repetition of it. > this thread yet. One year back when we discussed this issue with Alain, > I didn't hear any compelling reason. What has changed since then? Nothing has changed. You could say that the IETF's collective answer that the customers' requirements are insufficient justification has been rejected by the customers. I see no reason why that will change either. On this issue, I will defer to the customers' requirements and reject the collective's vision to change them. You are free to make your own determination. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgpkMLMIsR4QL.pgp
Description: PGP signature