[156470] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Tue Sep 18 18:10:18 2012
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:21:46 -0400."
<86lig7cvpw.fsf@seastrom.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:09:42 +1000
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <86lig7cvpw.fsf@seastrom.com>, "Robert E. Seastrom" writes:
>
> Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> writes:
>
> > I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
> > some of the posters is kind of shocking.
>
> There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy who
> observes that dual stacking is of limited utility if there are no v4
> addresses to be had.
Dual stack w/ CGN for IPv4. That can be supplied a number of ways
and it has more limitations for IPv4 that conventional CPE based
NAT.
Turning on dual stack, even at this late stage, lights up IPv6,
moves most of the traffic to IPv6 so that CGN's don't need to be
so beefy, and doesn't mean that you have to have perfect IPv6
everywhere when you turn on IPv6.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
