[140466] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 foot-dragging
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Wed May 11 15:43:08 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0C9E31E3@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 21:43:01 +0200
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11 mei 2011, at 20:39, George Bonser wrote:
>> So what's the alternative? Never change anything?
> Of course not. But the best course forward is going to be different =
for
> different folks. What might work best for me might not (probably WILL
> not) work best for everyone else. One has to look at their situation
> and plan the best path for their business with their architecture and
> the resources they have available to them. I suggested one option but
> that might not work for others.
I find it strange that you approach this issue as one of the great =
questions of our time. If you don't want to enable IPv6 for your service =
at this time, then don't enable IPv6 for your service at this time. But =
you'll have to do it at some point, so doing it together with your =
competitors and/or big players seems like a good choice. Going through =
huge lengths to optimize for a problem that will only exist for a couple =
of years or so doesn't make sense to me. Also, all this special case =
logic has a nasty tendency to create all kinds of unexpected problems =
down the road. I'm sure that the people at Microsoft thought it was a =
swell idea to enable 6to4 by default. If they hadn't done that, they'd =
saved us all a lot of wasted time.
