On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
Why aren't the "still-large percentage of the operator community" not bothering to contribute?
This has already been re-iterated time and time again. Operators are generally not protocol architects, they are in the business of building and maintaining networks to deliver a service. They are not in the business of designing protocols. They might come to the IETF and wish for functionality and can generally describe what they want to do. They generally do not write RFCs.
Fred Baker posted a working group last call on a draft recently (12th Sept, ipv6-ops, draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn WGLC) to one of the IPv6 operator mailing lists. I wonder how many operators bothered to read it and contribute?
When operators (like me) come here and want things, we get shot down by "too late" and "you're wrong".
p.s. calling people you don't agree with "zealots" won't win any arguments or convince anybody of the value of your position - it's resorting to name calling, nothing more.
So it's better to blame people for not wanting to engineer and design exactly what it is they need? That's like saying a racing driver is to fault because he didn't help design the ball-bearing in the engine crank shaft and it broke during a race.
They are already optional. Those people who don't want to use ND/RAs are likely to already have knobs to switch them off (Cisco switch off RAs by default on some interface types already) and will have static configuration mechanisms.
.. and what (I, and others) are saying is that we would like DHCPv6 to be able to do the same "static" configuration.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
