This is unusual, but, I have to agree with Randy here.
Owen
On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Amen to that Randy.
MMC
Randy Bush wrote:
This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards
packets
makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and
DHCP for
v6, so that everyone who has extracted any value from DHCP in
their toolkit
can continue to do so, and roll out v6 !
no. what we need is more religious v6 fanatics to make use of v6
hard
to roll out on existing networks. after all, v6 is soooo wonderful
we
should be happy to double our opex for the privilege of using such a
fantastic protocol.
v6 fanaticism has done vastly more damage to v6 deployment than the
v6
haters. arrogance kills.
randy