[112081] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Wed Feb 18 20:58:07 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <69DA0224-69AD-4D58-8097-5BC2946FA0E6@internode.com.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:57:53 +1300
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 19/02/2009, at 12:37 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
> On 19/02/2009, at 9:20 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Who says the IPv6 solutions need to be better than IPv4?
>
> Actually, with IPv6 I'd like _a_ solution that at least is viable
> and works - it's doesn't have to be the final one, it doesn't have
> to even be as good as IPv4, it just has to be able to be productized
> for delivery to real customers like my mum and dad and not the 1337-
> g33ks from Planet Geekdom.
>
> Given it's 2009 and IPv6 has been around, for, well, sometime, I
> find it as someone trying to implement IPv6 on a large general scale
> for broadband that there's still a lot of "proposals", "drafts",
> general misunderstanding and turf wars over basic stuff like how the
> heck we're going to give IPv6 addresses to broadband customers.
>
> I understand that there are lot of people reading this who've spent
> time and effort trying to make forward progress and I salute you
> all, but come on - let's try and make this work so that all the
> lovely IPv6 stuff can be given to the masses rather than forcing us
> to spend our lives squabbling about how evil NAT is at an SP level.
>
> Does anyone here _really_ want Geoff Houston to be right about
> deploying IPv6?
From other discussion with you, your main concern is vendor support
for a few things, right?
It might be a good idea to socialise these problems so we can get lots
of people pushing vendors - even if they do not have as immediate
requirements as you do, they will want to have the problems removed so
when they *do* have immediate requirements they can go ahead and get
it working.
--
Nathan Ward
