IPv6 Confusion

Wed Feb 18 00:03:10 UTC 2009

At Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:28:11 -0800,
Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are
> implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at this
> point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host
> implementations will conform to what the network operator would prefer

s/network operator would prefer/specifications/

> One last comment (because I hear "just more bits" a lot in the *nog
> community)... Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol. If you approach
> it as "IPv4 with more bits", you will trip over the differences and be
> pissed off. If you approach it as a "different protocol with a name that
> starts with IP" and runs alongside IPv4 (like we used to do with decnet,
> sna, appletalk...), you will be comforted in all the similarities. You will
> also hear lots of noise about 'lack of compatibility', which is just another
> instance of refusing to recognize that this is really a different protocol.
> At the end of the day, it is a packet based protocol that moves payloads
> around. 

unfortunately, this view leads to two internets, and one not reachable
from the other.  this is not very realistic from the business and user
point of view.

randy