[184547] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /27 the new /24
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Wed Oct 7 16:24:04 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 20:23:57 +0000
In-Reply-To: <7EB5C4BD-E1C1-4720-9E94-C834DBE83E75@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
We know. I recommend you read the whole thread before reacting. =20
-mel beckman
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed =
to support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA.
>=20
> Not true. IPSec is recommended, not mandatory.
>=20
> This change was made in favor of resource constrained nodes (think micro =
controllers with very small memories).
>=20
>> There's really no excuse for not supporting IPSec, as it's a widely avai=
lable open source component that costs nothing to incorporate into an IPv6 =
stack.
>=20
> Simply not true. There are nodes which have no need for it and are resour=
ce constrained.
>=20
>> Your observation simply means that users must be informed when buying IP=
v6 devices, just as they must with any product. You can buy either genuine =
IPv6 or half-baked IPv6 products. When I speak of IPv6, I speak only of the=
genuine article.
>=20
> This is true. If you need the device to support IPv6, you should definite=
ly make sure that it does, but that is ordinary reality with any feature of=
any product rather than anything specific to IPv6.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
