On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >>> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only. >> >> this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory. > >Ah, yes, the workers are quite revolting! > >> load of crap. >> >> make ipv6 easier to deploy, especially in enterprise. repeat the >> previous sentence 42 times. > > >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? > 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." Lee
