Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison-00.txt (fwd)
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 06:31:34 +0900
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>

>> the multi-million-euro enterprise can continue to do ipv4.  and that's
>> what they are doing.  we can stick our heads <fill in> and pretend that
>> this is not a festering and embarrassing problem or we can fix it.
>
> Okay, Randy.  You're a smart, articulate guy.  Can you tell us what is
> missing that we need to add, and in what sense it's missing?  I have
> yet to hear a clear statement of what the problem is.

then you are a newcomer to an eight year old conversation.  i will not
bother with the technical issues which have been discussed endlessly,
rinse repeat.  that's why we have list archives.

the bottom line is that the vast majority enterprises, campuses, ... are
run by IT departments which pay the bills and do it their way.  they use
dhcp, good, bad, indifferent.  we don't have to like what the people who
pay us money want to do.  arguing with the customer is generally not a
good strategy.

yes there are enterprises who drink the koolaid and follow the true
religion.  so far, they are a teensie minority.  the vast majority of
enterprises run ipv4, rfc1918, ...  when they look at ipv6 the first
question, and often the only question is "how much will it cost?"  and
the answer to that is bad enough without any speed bumps of changing
what they are doing today.

if we want them to deploy ipv6, as opposed to more rfc1918 space, then
we need to remove all speed bumps.  not discuss them.  not tell them
that RA is the true religion.  frelling remove the speed bump.

there is no harm and there is trivial cost in giving the customer what
she wants.

that the ietf has refused to do so for years is characteristic of the
arrogance and ignorance which leaves ipv6's survival still at risk.

randy