RA & DHCP problem...

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:18:33 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 06:48:14PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> "Because I want to" isn't a good technical answer.
>
> "Because it might end this ever-ongoing source of noise" might seem 
> like a
> good reason.
>
> OTOH it will teach people that if you keep on making your noise, you
> can force your ideas on everyone.

I would rather call that everygoing noise a side effect of something 
else.



My biggest problem with this entire "discussion" is the complete lack
of respect for others way of configuring thing, or building setups.
Probably worse is the laughing of someones valid use cases by others.

"My way or the highway" kind of attitude on this entire RA vs 
<whatever>
discussion.



What is wrong with having something else than our _current_ RAs to 
provide
defaultgateway on a network if the operator wish so? Let that be DHCPv6 
or
dibbler?



---

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen      | - ROJO9-RIPE
roger at jorgensen.no   | - The Future is IPv6
-------------------------------------------------------

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?