[149816] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Common operational misconceptions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Thornton)
Thu Feb 16 03:23:18 2012
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:21:05 +0000
From: Paul Thornton <prt@prt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <D2E0BA90-D48E-42FA-9312-9E659694837F@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 16/02/2012 07:45, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> On 2012.02.15 19:55, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>>>> IPv6 is operational.
>>>
>>> How is this a misconception? It works fine for me...
>>
>> Imagine an operator who is v6 ignorant, with a home provider who implements v6 half-assed, and tries to access a v6 site that has perhaps v6-only accessible nameservers, when their provider who 'offers' v6 has resolvers that operate only over v4.
>>
>> *huge* misconception about the operational status of IPv6 (imho).
>>
>> Steve
>
> By that definition, IPv4 is non-operational.
>
> You can break anything if you try hard enough.
This being well demonstrated by most of the "Internet" access provided
by hotels, for example.
--
Paul
