[96897] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Tue May 29 12:06:55 2007
In-Reply-To: <C281FC63.19C098%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:22:35 -0700
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Jordi,
On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and
> IPv6,
Why?
The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending the old
protocol. Even the way you ask for names is different (A vs. AAAA).
Why should anyone assume a one-to-one mapping between the two
Internets based on those protocols?
> they should not notice it.
They shouldn't, but they will. Having had the fun of trying to
figure out why I lost connectivity to a site (then realizing it was
because I had connected via IPv6 instead of IPv4 and IPv6 routing ...
changed), the current IPv6 infrastructure is, shall we say, not quite
production ready.
> And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to
> know
> them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we
> start, sooner
> we can sort it out, if required.
Forcing end users to be exposed to the pain of transition? This is
the techno-geek mindset, not the critical communications
infrastructure-geek mindset. Guess which one is more appropriate to
the Internet today?
Rgds,
-drc
