[137625] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Lyon)
Thu Feb 17 13:31:54 2011
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqwXwpkF-K=Yw8PnKphVAHNeEFjQHa9JuDuXPm@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:31:31 -0500
From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yep, and that's great. =A0Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
>>> packet like this.
>>>
>>> Cameron
>>
>> Considering how small of a change it is, simply removing that net from
>> the "black list", they could do it at any time with a code update to any
>> version of IOS, provided that black list isn't burned into hardware.
>>
>
> I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible. =A0I escalated,
> still no-go, it was a "deep" problem. =A0And they pointed to the IETF
> saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
> or whatever to fix it.
>
> This is where i turned to the IPv6-only reality of the future
> near-term internet. =A0I suggest you do the same.
>
> Cisco is just one example. =A0The fact is it will likely not work in
> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, .... =A0I understand
> some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
> your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
> (cisco and msft)
>
> Let me remind you, i believe opening 240/4 for private unicast was a
> good ideas years ago. =A0It is still not a bad idea, what's the harm?
> But ... the answer you will hear is that IPv6 has momentum, go with
> the flow.
>
> Using 240/4 is much better than providing a public allocation to
> private networks. =A0It properly makes folks consider the reality of
> staying with broken ipv4 or making the much better long term
> investment in IPv6.
>
> @George
>
> Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
> on this list. =A0Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
> Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.
>
> Cameron
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
--=20
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
