[137626] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Thu Feb 17 13:35:39 2011
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:33 -0800
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqwXwpkF-K=Yw8PnKphVAHNeEFjQHa9JuDuXPm@mail.gmail.com>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
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
> I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible. I escalated,
> still no-go, it was a "deep" problem. And they pointed to the IETF
> saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
> or whatever to fix it.
Ok, so that implies that it is burned into hardware and as it is
ASIC-based hardware and not FPGA, they can't reprogram the hardware with
a code update (one of the advantages of FPGA-based hardware).
=20
> Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
> cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, .... I 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)
>=20
I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the
"middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to
conserve IP space.
> @George
>=20
> Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
> on this list. Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
> Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.
The usage I have in mind would be transparent to the end stations and,
frankly, someone who produces provider gear and CPE that can take
advantage of that space is going to have a great selling point. There
is some gold under there for someone. 240/4 is a great big "dig here"
sign if they want some of it.
