[124696] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Dillon)
Sun Apr 4 04:47:22 2010
In-Reply-To: <m2bpe0j9qh.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 09:46:42 +0100
From: Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ag=
o,
>
> and if cash fell from the sky ...
>
> to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with
> ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no
> licensing extortion, ...
>
> we don't have that today!
We need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people
building UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about
"vendors" and made things work as best they could. Eventually, the vendors
caught on and jumped on the bandwagon.
The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
traffic levels
get high enough to need the fastpath. Today we need to get more complete
IPv6 coverage. And if management and monitoring work fine on IPv4 and
networks are dual-stacked, why change?
Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher license
fee for IPv6 support?
> the *additional* cost and effort to the isp of fullly deploying
> dual-stack is still non-trivial. =A0this is mightily off-pissing.
Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required to
turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT. And
the running costs of IPv6 are also lower,
--Michael Dillon
