On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 2 feb 2011, at 20:37, John Payne wrote: > >>>> DHCP fails because you can't get a default router out of it. > >>> If you consider that wrong, I don't want to be right. > >> Hey, I thought you wanted ops input... Here you are getting it, and look, >> here all you are doing is saying that its wrong. > > I said the IETF wants input. > > In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the IETF. I don't represent them in any > way. I'm not even a working group chair. I've gone to a bunch of meetings, > spent way too much time on IETF mailinglists and co-wrote all of one RFCs.
You may not represent the IETF, but you are representative of the attitude of the IETF. > > I read some great writing advice once. It applies to much more than just > writing. It goes like this: whenever a reader tells you that there's > something wrong with your book, there is something wrong with your book. But > if they tell you how to fix it, they're pretty much always wrong. There's something wrong with your attitude towards operators. There's a lot wrong with the IETF attitude towards operators, but you're here :) > I'm not part of the DHC working group and I'm not a big DHCP user myself, so > I don't claim to know the issues that exist with DHCPv6 in the operational > community. But I'm sure there are some valid issues there. However, I'm > equally sure that adding IPv4-DHCP-style router addresses to DHCPv6 is a big > mistake that will create a lot of operational problems. Maybe not in the > networks of the people that want this feature, but the problems will be there. Having machines listen to any RA they receive is _today_ a cause of a lot of operational problems. Why do we need mommy-IETF telling us no for default routes in DHCP but letting RAs run wild? Why does the mere mention of NAT cause daddy-IETF to round up the troops and insist that everyone is wrong?
