Re: pppd's defaultroute option

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>> [I]f it bothers me in the future, expect me to fix the damn software
>> rather than running even more (and more complex) software to make up
>> for some fool's religious insistence that everyone else should see
>> network configuration the same way The IPv6 Cabal does.
> Or you could continue to support the IPv4 Cabal of backbone operators
> who want you to have only NAT'ed IPv4.

I could.  But I see no more reason to follow them (in any respect) than
I do to follow IPv6 dogma on network configuration.

> If could be, that the IPv6 way is the way *out* of the "some fool's"
> belief that you are merely a consumer.

_That_ is something I have no reason to think v6-vs-v4 will have any
effect on at all.  The very most I can see it doing there is removing
the address space size excuse for NAT.

>>> Having pppd do it would be wrong: you might as well do it in an
>>> ip-up script.
>> Having pppd do it is no more wrong than having pppd do it for v4 is.
> I'm glad you agree with the IPv6 architects.

Well, I disagree with _someone_, since pppd has defaultroute but no
defaultroute6 (and you seem to think adding defaultroute6 is wrong but
haven't given any signs of removing defaultroute).  You made it sound
as though this were a philosophical design (mis)feature of IPv6, which
is why I laid at the v6 "Cabal"'s door.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B