[69651] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Lazy network operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Jakma)
Sat Apr 17 22:49:54 2004
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:48:55 +0100 (IST)
From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
To: Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B069E9F@server2003.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:
> Oh oh I see another one taking the path that leads to the dark side.
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)? And, to be more on-topic, name one good reason
why a network operator would want it? Especially given that, apart
from the traditional bleeding edges (academic networks), no customers
are asking for it.
As Paul Vixie points out, without a multihoming solution beyond that
offered by 4, v6 networks will look just v4 - most of it will be on
non-global address space and NAT. Not really interesting..
[snip darth vader]
I know, what's worse is that I know it need not be so. (how's your
MHAP doing? How's Iljitsch's geo-assigned addressing proposal?)
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.
