[89182] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Sat Mar 4 11:55:31 2006
In-Reply-To: <20060304114302.b2270c1b.smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, tme@multicasttech.com,
jabley@isc.org, john@sackheads.org, dgolding@burtongroup.com,
iljitsch@muada.com, nanog@nanog.org
From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:54:49 -0500
To: Steven M.Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mar 4, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> On 3 mar 2006, at 04.13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>
>>> I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was
>>> any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be,
>>> in 2010 we might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90%
>>> deployment.
>>
>> OTOH Teredo, which isn't even a standard is in more or less all
>> Windows XP boxes....
>>
> Teredo is described in RFC 4380; it's a Proposed Standard.
>
> I should note that Microsoft really believes in IPv6. I wonder what
> that means for its future....
Let's hope it means that they'll eventually come up with nicer ways
to configure IPv6 stacks in Windows flavors than they have this far...
