On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:27:13 +0100, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
<snip>
So - again AIUI - the argument is mostly the usual "DHCPv6 is more
suited
to this network than RAs". This is true, but there are other networks
where
RAs are a better fit than DHCPv6. The question has always been
whether we
should completely duplicate routing configuration functionality into
DHCPv6, and add support for that into clients, and the answer has
repeatedly been that there is no consensus to do so.
No consensus because there has _always_ been a group of people that
shoot
down any idea that move in any direction where RAs are not the sole
provider
of defaultroute.
I know, I've always been against the idea but well, it's sickening how
stuck
we've all gone in this train of thought right now.
What is wrong with having a _choice_ if you want to ha RAs+OTHER just
OTHER? Right now it's DHCPv6 that are OTHER, but someone mention
dibbler
here in another mail?
---
------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE
[email protected] | - The Future is IPv6
-------------------------------------------------------
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
