[113887] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Wed Apr 22 18:38:51 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <49EF7A2D.3010307@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:38:32 +1200
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23/04/2009, at 8:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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.
This work is actually mostly being done by some guys at Cisco, and
other vendors have plenty of input as well.
I would be surprised if CPEs that support the outcome of this work are
far behind the RFC being published (or even a late draft).
--
Nathan Ward
