[124740] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: legacy /8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Apr 4 14:25:30 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <l2t877585b01004040146jb224a77cu9c26bc8b37e199e6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 08:24:36 -1000
To: Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years =
ago,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.
You're joking, right?
You don't think that perhaps the fact that the Internet is seen as a =
critical piece of the telecommunications infrastructure on which =
national economies have become increasingly dependent and that people =
pay real money for and expect to operate 24x7x365 with full support =
might have something to do with why things are a bit different then when =
a tiny number of highly technical folks were playing around?
> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6 =
has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
> 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?
Because things break?
> Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher =
license
> fee for IPv6 support?
Others have pointed this out.
>> the *additional* cost and effort to the isp of fullly deploying
>> dual-stack is still non-trivial. this is mightily off-pissing.
>=20
> 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,
Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data =
showing how CGN is more expensive would be very helpful.
Regards,
-drc
