Some thoughts on 240/4

Fri Oct 19 15:48:57 UTC 2007

In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:19:57AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> How much ship date slip for the IPv6 features you need are you willing to
> accept when 240/4 updates blow the schedule?

Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule?

I ask this for two reasons:

1) The majority of the machines that need to be fixed are not run
   by the ISP.   The real issue here is Microsoft, Apple, DLink,
   Linksys, Netgear and so on.  They can ship patches without a lot
   of ISP involvement.

2) The change in this case has been documented to be excessively
   minimal.  Patches for FreeBSD and Linux have been produced, and
   I believe both are under 5 lines.  They consist of removing something
   to the effect:

   if (240/4)
      error ("Not allowed to be used yet.");

   There's no new code in 99% of the platforms, there's just removing
   the "IANA hasn't told us how it will be used" message and, I
   guess for completeness retesting.  It will take longer for most
   vendors to have the meeting to decide it's the right thing to
   do than to do it.

So while ISP's push forward on the IPv6 front, Microsoft, Apple and
others can push out this change via normal software update mechanisms.
I'm not seeing why one has any real impact on the other.  Later we
can evaluate success and see if it can be used.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071019/a91a8f6e/attachment.sig>