[c-nsp] DHCPv6

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:37:03AM +0200, Tarko Tikan wrote:
> >*Please*  keep "is DHCPv6 or RA the loonie camp?"*off*  cisco-nsp.
> 
> While it's not correct place for political discussions, it's good to see 
> this in vendor specific lists where people deal with actual networks and 
> actual deployments.

"This and that can not be done with cisco gear" or "this is how to do
it with cisco gear" is certainly fine, and I apologize if my mail was
understood at "no discussion about DHCPv6! go away!".

> This, in my mind, is another example why default route in DHCPv6 should 
> happen - people expect it to be there. Same for extended options in RA.

IPv6 is not IPv4.  If you expect all things to be the same, there are
some interesting surprises for you, like "why does all my networking 
break if I filter all ICMP, like I do in IPv4?" (answer: because you
killed NDP...)

"Just because it is done that way in IPv4" is a very poor reason for 
anything.  *And* it's the political discussion that is really happening
on all the lists, all the time, about 15 years after it *should* have
happened.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20140106/43693667/attachment-0001.sig>