RE: DHCPv6-PD is fine

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> > But in other places, automobiles for example, one must use the existing
> cellular networks.  DHCPv6-PD is not fine there.  It's not FUD.
> 
> Just to clarify ...
> From what I've been reading in this thread, in the mobile world the problem
> isn't DHCPv6-PD, but the cellular world having not adopted it, or even
> blocked it (ref discussion of mobile modems blocking DHCP packets).
> 
> For clarity, is there a problem with DHCPv6-PD, or is there a problem with the
> mobile world not supporting it for whatever reason ?
> 
> The reason I ask is that if it's the latter, then the response to "it doesn't work,
> we need to change something" is that you need to go to the mobile industry
> and tell them to fix their ****.
> 
> My 2d worth, Simon

Please don't take this personally, but, IMO, this is exactly the attitude that has
brought us to this point. The IETF participants think IETF is in a position to dictate 
and think they know better how to operate and deploy a network than the
operators. Availability of equipment that implements features, complexity
of legacy OSS/BSS systems, and complexity of deploying multiple methods
of configuration (to make everyone happy) are 100% irrelevant and operators
should simply spend whatever amount is needed to do exactly what IETF dictates.

I've suggested engaging and collaborating with other SDOs where operators
prefer to do their work. But that suggestion clearly has no support here.
Barbara