legacy /8

Sun Apr 4 18:24:36 UTC 2010

On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,We need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about "vendors" and made things work as best they could.

You're joking, right?

You don't think that perhaps the fact that the Internet is seen as a critical piece of the telecommunications infrastructure on which national economies have become increasingly dependent and that people pay real money for and expect to operate 24x7x365 with full support might have something to do with why things are a bit different then when a tiny number of highly technical folks were playing around?

> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.

Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6 has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.

> Today we need to get more complete
> IPv6 coverage. And if management and monitoring work fine on IPv4 and
> networks are dual-stacked, why change?

Because things break?

> Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher license
> fee for IPv6 support?

Others have pointed this out.

>> the *additional* cost and effort to the isp of fullly deploying
>> dual-stack is still non-trivial.  this is mightily off-pissing.
> 
> Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required to
> turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT. And
> the running costs of IPv6 are also lower,

Can you provide pointers to these analyses?  Any evidence-backed data showing how CGN is more expensive would be very helpful.

Regards,
-drc