On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it is, given that the option would (if defined) obviously be used > widely. At the very minimum, 6man would have to say "no objection" to this.
Currently many (perhaps most!) IPv6-capable devices don't even _implement_ DHCPv6 for IP address allocation. So this claim is not a statement of fact—it is clearly not true. As speculation as to what might happen in the future, it is of questionable value—we simply don't know what the future holds. As a user of IPv6 on my home network, I don't see much use for this option, so it seems like a special case option to me. When we met in Paris, at least one operator said that he didn't want to use this option because it would make managing his network harder (ironically, he was against the option out of a fear that he would somehow be forced to use it despite his strong preference not to do so). I realize that you have a different opinion, but my point is that both your opinion and mine are pure speculation—there is no way to know what will actually happen if this option becomes a standard. Consequently, the working group should take neither your speculation nor mine into account—what we should talk about is whether there are motivating use cases for this draft, and whether there are serious technical problems or known drawbacks with the draft such that, if it were to advance, something bad would definitely happen. Of course, chances are we won't have that sort of discussion, because there are some religious folks who have strong beliefs here, but I feel obliged to mention it as an aspirational goal. _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
