[113870] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Apr 22 16:13:04 2009
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:12:29 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFE018B-0A0F-4688-86BE-600736C0DD37@muada.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, nanog@nanog.org,
Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
> should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
> broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the
> IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.
>
> So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6
> deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4 addresses.
I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into
the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is
expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published?
If the IETF is talking "future" and developers are also talking
"future", us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks
can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just
make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF
catch up later on.
/RANT
Jack
