RE: PPP IPV6 Control Protocol Extensions for Prefix
"Glen Zorn" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Organization | Cisco Systems |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> writes: >> I don't think that one should be published, either. RFC 1877 wasn't >> a good thing, and I don't think we're doing anyone any favor >> extending it into IPv6. > > This is especially true since WINS doesn't even exist for IPv6. Why > define a protocol to configure something that isn't even supported? I think that it would be a good thing, if possible, to raise the level of discussion about our draft above the level of blind ideology. I also think it would be a good idea if the people making these ideological arguments would actually read the document (WINS is not even mentioned therein). ~gwz "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither..." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." -- Voltaire