Re: [mif] Use case 42 [Re: Use cases for draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option needed]

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 17, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Operators say that they want (approximate) feature parity so
> that they can have (approximate) alignment between their
> operational procedures for v4 and v6, especially in a dual stack
> network. I assert that this is a very good engineering reason,
> and it isn't for the IETF to get on its high horse and say that
> experienced operators don't know how to manage OPEX.

I agree that it's a good engineering reason, but it's not the only factor that should be considered.   A number of things were broken in IPv4, and we'd like to not have those things become permanently a part of the architecture.

On the other hand, second-system effect is arguably one of the factors that has delayed adoption of IPv6.   We need to be aware that change comes with a cost, even if it seems like a change for the better.   That doesn't mean to never make changes, it means consider the cost when considering whether to make a change.

Keith