[137658] 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 20:47:24 2011
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:47:09 -0800
In-Reply-To: <4A0543F0-0B14-4A90-8B1B-ABEEB19F6EF5@delong.com>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>,
"Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
I don't think anyone was proposing it as an alternative to v6. It is
more along the lines of keeping the existing v4 net working as people
migrate over. Freeing up WAN IPs can make them available for v6
migration purposes. The ironic thing about v6 is that it will require
some additional v4 addresses during the migration period.
