[85721] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Sun Oct 16 10:56:08 2005
In-Reply-To: <10CB8B85-91F0-4AF9-AC3B-7037044ACA6E@virtualized.org>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:55:38 -0400
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 16-Oct-2005, at 03:37, David Conrad wrote:
>> Shifting the NAT to end system removed the objection to NAT, tho
>> it's not entirely clear why. Shifting NAT to the end system also
>> happened to simplify the entire solution as well.
>
> Except for the part about having to rewrite all existing
> implementations to take full advantage of the technology.
Thought experiment: how many different software vendors need to
change their shipping IPv6 code in order for some new feature like
shim6 to be 80% deployed in the server and client communities of hosts?
I'm thinking it's probably less than 5, but I'd be interested to hear
opinions to the contrary.
Joe
