IPv6 Confusion

Adrian Chadd adrian at creative.net.au
Wed Feb 18 14:18:51 CST 2009


On Wed, Feb 18, 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
> Kevin Loch wrote:
> >Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools we
> >have in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off?
> 
> You don't, because there isn't really a technical reason for turning off 
> RA. RA is used as a starting point. It can push you to DHCPv6 or any 

Welcome to the 2009 internet. I hate to say it, but the "technical only"
argument belongs back in the era I got involved in this junk, mid-1990's.

If the things stopping corporate adoption are A, B, and C (eg, DHCPv6 style
host management, firewall and l2/l3 filter set parity (eg, cisco port
lockdown features, I forget all of the crap involved there), and lack of
parity in various application support) and the academic community keeps
shouting out "but damnit, our dogfood is better!", then you're going to
lose.

Being told by a group of network-y people that "our dogfood is better"
sounds to me like the days where telco's kept saying "this IP stuff
is crap, our ATM/FR "dogfood" is better, why would you deploy IP end
to end?"

Its amusing. Seriously. Someone needs to draw up some parallels
between IPv6 adoption/advocacy and ATM/FR/ISDN "stuff" versus IP(v4)
"adoption" back in the mid to late 1990's. I'd certainly have a laugh.

my 2c, or 1.24c AUD;



Adrian





More information about the NANOG mailing list