[111972] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Tue Feb 17 19:03:29 2009
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:03:10 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
In-Reply-To: <050701c99135$df0f0ed0$9d2d2c70$@net>
Cc: 'Carl Rosevear' <Carl.Rosevear@demandmedia.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
At Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:28:11 -0800,
Tony Hain wrote:
>
> While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are
> implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at this
> point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host
> implementations will conform to what the network operator would prefer
s/network operator would prefer/specifications/
> One last comment (because I hear "just more bits" a lot in the *nog
> community)... Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol. If you approach
> it as "IPv4 with more bits", you will trip over the differences and be
> pissed off. If you approach it as a "different protocol with a name that
> starts with IP" and runs alongside IPv4 (like we used to do with decnet,
> sna, appletalk...), you will be comforted in all the similarities. You will
> also hear lots of noise about 'lack of compatibility', which is just another
> instance of refusing to recognize that this is really a different protocol.
> At the end of the day, it is a packet based protocol that moves payloads
> around.
unfortunately, this view leads to two internets, and one not reachable
from the other. this is not very realistic from the business and user
point of view.
randy
