[99534] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu Sep 27 18:09:01 2007
In-Reply-To: <46FC1FB3.3020406@psg.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, nanog@nanog.org
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:51:27 +0200
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 27-sep-2007, at 23:25, Randy Bush wrote:
> and the unscalable tunneling schemes are making a mess, in
> architecture,
> in implementation, in user experience. the latter is causing folk to
> turn off ipv6.
So run IPv6 natively and your tunneling issues are history.
> there is a problem that the ivtf
IVTF? That sounds like a fertility treatment...
> is dominated by the very vendors who
> are holding up deployment by incomplete, poorly performing,
> expensive to
> scale products. and adding complexity and features is not helping
> this
> either.
Strange. What I keep hearing is "we can't possibly deploy IPv6 until
it has <insert favorite IPv4 feature>". (And then when that feature
becomes available somehow IPv6 still isn't deployed.)
The simple truth is that IPv6 will be widely deployed as soon as it
reduces cost / increases income / enables features that can't be had
otherwise. The rest is just details which we generally get 80% right,
which makes for an annoying 20% but that's life.
