[96840] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris L. Morrow)
Sun May 27 11:32:54 2007
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 15:30:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
In-reply-to: <A1FFB1C8-60A4-430A-AACB-5875ACB9A1B4@daork.net>
To: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
I think you also missed the suggestion that sending out CPE with DD-wrt
was a 'good idea'. Honestly DD-wrt/open-wrt are nice solutions for testing
or for people willing to fiddle, they are not a good solution for
'grandma'.
Yes, vendors should have been asked for v6 capabilities equal to v4
capabilties for atleast 10 years now, in some cases they were in some
cases not. Either way, they aren't pushing out v6 capable product today
are they? Even with:
1) gao mandate
2) 'ipv4 exhaustion'
3) hue anc cry from v6 folks
what's going to change this inthe near future?
