Hi, On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 04:06:17PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Fernando Gont <[email protected]> writes: > > > They can't do stable addresses, and they are facing this problem. > > This is a constructed problem. The solution is to remove the > construction. > > I realize that the "can't do stable addresses" might be enforced by > non-technical entities, but this would most likely not happen if it was > a violation of a standards track RFC. > > I'm sure you can fix that :-)
It's a fallacy that people are interested in RFCs that conflict with real
world constraints. Like, "must inspect arbitrarily deep EH chains
at wire speed". Or "must guarantee a static IPv6 prefix assignment
for the duration of a contract in an extremely low-margin market".
As I said before, this insistence on "IPv6 prefixes must never change!!
So if they change, we do not care about the consequences, but complain
about the change itself!!" is foolish to start with. People want to
change ISPs, want to multihome, if they have two ISPs, one or the other
might fail at times - so, getting our standards and implementations in
order to actually *deal with reality* (= prefixes change) would result
in a much nicer overall experience.
But then, since this is IETF, maybe reality is just all wrong, and just
not conforming to standards tracks RFC in the first place...
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
