[144791] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Sep 19 08:00:28 2011
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:17:57 PDT."
<CAD6AjGR7pEwpw+qOdMkODXRjhmw=dpg7GYuOsRpo0ttqevGWfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:59:07 -0400
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1316433547_4752P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:17:57 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
> Call me optimistic but .... ipv6 does not have these issues...
>
> For anyone making STRATEGIC choices about ipv4 investments... beware of
> sharks in these waters, not just the cgn pains
For many of us (especiially the ones who have ipv6 deployed already), the
problem isn't *our* strategic choices, the problem is the less-than-strategic
choices made by the network owning the other end of the connection. If we're
ready to talk over IPv6, but the other end instead decides to try to talk to us
over a NAT444 or from a prefix that's got sketchy history, there really isn't
much we can do about it.
--==_Exmh_1316433547_4752P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOdy6LcC3lWbTT17ARAlj7AKCqnWB6gNctU/VUMgstHd6KW0cO6wCgnF/u
4r56C/eUAJ3+8qsnBek3aWM=
=1kK+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1316433547_4752P--
