NANOG 40 agenda posted
drc at virtualized.org
Tue May 29 15:22:35 UTC 2007
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
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
> And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to
> 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?
More information about the NANOG