On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:58:06 -0400, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@colitti.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jon Bane <j...@nnbfn.net> wrote:
DHCPv6 - RFC3315 - Category: Standards Track
464XLAT - RFC6877 - Category: Informational
Ooo, that's fun, can I play too?
We aren't asking you to support BGP, or SNMP. We're DEMANDING you support
a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT of IPv6. DHCPv6 is not *optional*. And every
reason you've given to date sounds like a whiny I-Don't-Like-It political
agenda. The fact that others have made it work is proof of your
asshattery. This has been going around for **YEARS**. You've spent orders
of magnitude more time defending your "no" position than it would take to
actually include DHCPv6 support. In *two days* of bitching on NANOG, every
one of your positions has been shot down, and solutions to every corner
case has been presented -- sure, the network policy could still render
things non-workable (no PD, only one address, etc.)
Will IPv4 only apps work with only one v6 address, no. (or "not easily")
But then, IPv4 isn't IPv6; any kludge to get one to work within the other
is 100% BS hackery (because no one thought about migration or
interoperability. dual-stack was declared the answer, and the WG patted
themselves on the back.)
Given the choice of ZERO network access, or ("legacy" ???) IPv4 only apps
not working, I'll take the later. The people in charge of those lacking
apps need to fix their shit.
