Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-yourtchenko-ra-dhcpv6-comparison-00.txt (fwd)

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Your and other peoples' continuing efforts to block standardisation of a
> DHCPv6 routing option using any means possible - endless arguments and
> continuously shouting everyone down - do nothing to hide the reality that
> your viewpoint of how ipv6 ought to operate is not the only valid
> viewpoint out there.
>

I don't think that's a useful line of reasoning. You argue that I and
people like me cause endless arguments, but I could just as well argue that
you and people like you are causing the endless arguments are the people
who are constantly calling for the specifications to change to support
their views.


> Conversely, I ask you to accept that there are many people - including me -
> who hold a considered viewpoint that routing information auto-
> configuration using DHCPv6 would be a good fit for our requirements and
> that you are not the best judge of what is or is not appropriate for our
> networks.
>

We've been through this before. I do accept that it's better in your
network (though perhaps not in Matt's; ECMP does seem a better solution). I
just don't agree that standardizing routing in DHCP to make your network
work better is the right tradeoff for the Internet as a whole. The way I
see it, changing the standards has knock-on effects on host implementations
and other networks, and I believe that if you look at the system as a
whole, it will be a net loss.