IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Mon, 02 January 2017 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBAC129512 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 02:55:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mdk0dD2FSULR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 02:55:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0645129437 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2017 02:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cO0Gj-0006k9-FR; Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:55:09 +0000
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 19:55:07 +0900
Message-ID: <m21swloho4.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10
In-Reply-To: <bc6fa473-5d7c-e0ea-bb04-91cd551fe17c@gmail.com>
References: <eb7127f9-4f29-325b-11cb-9accdf300b4c@gmail.com> <20161231231811.45008.qmail@ary.lan> <m2vatz2xs7.wl-randy@psg.com> <bc6fa473-5d7c-e0ea-bb04-91cd551fe17c@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/u9H1wXB6Wkru0qVDexLfljN9DJM>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 10:55:13 -0000

> I think (unlike Randy?) that having the choice between SLAAC and
> DHCPv6 is a fine thing.

i have heard a rumor that randy agrees with you.  but, as you go on to
say, dhcp with hamstrings intact.

> But hampering DHCPv6 by not having a next-hop router option is a
> self-inflicted wound.

yep

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email