[111638] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Mon Feb 9 19:02:45 2009
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:00:12 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@eeph.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1BCDE3F8-440B-4D2B-9BF1-D4AE5DBF7952@delong.com>
Cc: north American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Reply-To: matthew@eeph.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
> In terms of implementing the code, sure, the result is about the same,
> but, the key point here is that there really isn't a benefit to having that
> packet mangling code in IPv6.
Unless your SOX auditor requires it in order to give you a non-qualified
audit of your infrastructure.
The real problem with IPv6 deployment is not that it can't be done, but
that there are so many still-to-be-answered questions between here and
there...
Matthew Kaufman
