[137631] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 17 14:22:25 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13BC9@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:16:40 -0800
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>
>> 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)
>>
>
> 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.
>
Infeasible. NAT444 is primarily needed to avoid doing a CPE forklift
for nearly every subscriber. To deploy these addresses in that space would
require a CPE forklift for nearly every subscriber.
>> @George
>>
>> 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.
>
>
Maybe, but, CPE is rarely a unified solution, even within the same carrier.
Owen
