NANOG 40 agenda posted

David Conrad drc at
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  
> IPv6,


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?


More information about the NANOG mailing list