[156550] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Big Temporary Networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Wed Sep 19 18:03:18 2012
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:01:49 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CALOgxGZCzjr+AazEBorqu=WzxgSt+xt3MxO7kxPPMJhFPwsqcA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
TJ wrote:
>> The only thing operators have to know about IPv6 is that IPv6, as is
>> currently specified, is not operational.
> I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.
You failed to do so.
> Are there opportunities for increased efficiency, perhaps ... however:
Congestion collapse is not a matter of mere efficiency.
> I get native IPv6 at home via my standard residential cable connection
> using off the shelf CPE gear and standard OSes.
> I get native IPv6 via my standard LTE devices, again - off the shelf - no
> customization required.
That IPv6 works fine sometimes in some environment is not a
valid proof that IPv6 is operational.
Purposelessly bloated specification of IPv6 cause problems
in some environment, against which removal of features is
the only cure.
It's like not using IP options, even though they are defined
in RFC791.
Masataka Ohta
