rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from the integer rental monopoly,
flip a switch or
amen! :)
On 31May2013Friday, at 17:23, Randy Bush wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an
On May 31, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get
Warren Kumari wrote:
Unfortunately the was a bad case of creeping featuritis and we got:
A new, and unfortunately very complex way of resolving L2 addresses.
You may use ARP (and DHCP) with IPv6.
Extension headers that make it so you cannot actually forward
packets in modern hardware
(
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
out of ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute
minimal change and cost,
John C Klensin wrote:
Similarly, various applications folks within the IETF have
pointed out repeatedly that any approach that assigns multiple
addresses, associated with different networks and different
policies and properties, either requires the applications to
understand those policies,
