[137654] 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 20:16:13 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110218005739.B2CEDA4A8E8@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:09:23 -0800
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
> In message <20110217203639.GA3702@mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
>> George Bonser expunged (gbonser@seven.com):
>>=20
>>> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware =
out
>>> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
>>> usable today could be surprising.
>>=20
>> An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? =
Just lo
>> ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is =
your only o
>> ption.=20
>=20
> And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
> support it. It would take less time to fix the kernel than to argue
> over whether to fix it.
>=20
>> -Steve
> --=20
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to forklift =
the
devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the kernel, =
either.
The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a =
counter
productive waste of time. At best it's slightly short of break-even. At =
worst,
it's a huge $negative.
Owen
