In your previous mail you wrote: Catching up on old mail I saved for DHCPv6. Let me just start with your view is wrong.
=> do you argue we need dynamic address allocation for IPv6? I don't see the point of arguing with you. DHCPv6 will be deployed and widely used. => Jim, you already said that 5 years ago. I tried to believe in DHCPv6 but this is too hard, after years of discussion we still have no published specs! Its not an IETF discussion worth having in this vein IMO. => a document in the standard track should have to prove its utility, so this is still a valid IETF discussion topic. Many of us who also have implemented IPv6, talking to customers, and working with the market think you are 100% wrong. => near all IPv6 implementors are against DHCPv6 or are indifferent. You are the only notable exception. They want DHCPv6. => they believe they need it because they have not yet understood the differences between IPv6 and IPv4, or with other words, that allocation and management are not the same thing. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
