IPv6 Confusion

Tue Feb 17 20:24:26 UTC 2009

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
>>
>> Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol.
>
> Unfortunately, I gather this isn't what end users or network operators
> want or expect.  I suspect if we want to make real inroads towards IPv6
> deployment, we'll need to spend a bit more time making IPv6 look, taste,
> and feel like IPv4 and less time berating folks for "IPv4-think" (not
> that you do this, but others here do).  For example, getting over the
> stateless
> autoconfig religion (which was never fully thought out -- how does a
> autoconfig'd device get a DNS name associated with their address in a
> DNSSEC-signed world again?) and letting network operators use DHCP with
> IPv6 the way they do with IPv4.
>
> Or, we simply continue down the path of more NATv4.
>

Isn't that the basis for the "Principle of Least Astonishment"? ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment

- - ferg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017)

wj8DBQFJmxzsq1pz9mNUZTMRAkNLAKDHw0tWUOKjnCOqcInCp5h+L1yG2gCg+TZ1
OC+4/th4rmLSMzpV1138rrk=
=pKl5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/