IPv6 Confusion

Randy Bush randy at psg.com
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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list