[136120] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Tue Feb 1 10:21:26 2011
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:21:19 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <03B2CC80-BFD3-4EFB-A008-8C8349F01F75@americafree.tv>
Cc: carlos@lacnic.net, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/1/2011 9:13 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> As v6 innovation continues, v4 will be seen as something obsolete
> that needs constant work (and v4 innovation will be more and more
> about patching it to work and keep up with v6).
If it continues. The sad thing is, transition would have been a lot
smoother if not for IETF politics. "You can't have these features! It's
not IPv4! They would work perfectly fine, but we don't want you to do that!"
I still know a LOT of people who have no desire to switch. They are
holding out until vendors implement the features they want. NAPTv6,
default router in DHCPv6, etc, etc.
Jack
