[112079] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Wed Feb 18 19:05:58 2009
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:05:14 -0800 (PST)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: "adrian@creative.net.au" <adrian@creative.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <20090218225054.GA13120@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If the IPv6 solutions are not going to be 'better' than v4, how about simply making sure that they are 'as good as' ipv4?
Right now, I'd be hard pressed to think of a v6 function which is 'better' and I can think of a lot which are 'not as good as.'
-David Barak
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
>> Yep. You asked your vendors to support equivalent IPv6 things at the
>> time though, so when you roll out IPv6 the support is ready, right?
>>
>> The point is that these deficiencies exist in IPv4, and I'm not sure
>> how you would solve them in IPv6 (assuming you can make all the
>> changes you want, and get instant industry-wide support) any better
>> than you solve them in IPv4.
> Who says the IPv6 solutions need to be better than IPv4?
> Adrian
