mmc at internode.com.au
Wed Feb 18 23:37:30 UTC 2009
On 19/02/2009, at 9:20 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Who says the IPv6 solutions need to be better than IPv4?
Actually, with IPv6 I'd like _a_ solution that at least is viable and
works - it's doesn't have to be the final one, it doesn't have to even
be as good as IPv4, it just has to be able to be productized for
delivery to real customers like my mum and dad and not the 1337-g33ks
from Planet Geekdom.
Given it's 2009 and IPv6 has been around, for, well, sometime, I find
it as someone trying to implement IPv6 on a large general scale for
broadband that there's still a lot of "proposals", "drafts", general
misunderstanding and turf wars over basic stuff like how the heck
we're going to give IPv6 addresses to broadband customers.
I understand that there are lot of people reading this who've spent
time and effort trying to make forward progress and I salute you all,
but come on - let's try and make this work so that all the lovely IPv6
stuff can be given to the masses rather than forcing us to spend our
lives squabbling about how evil NAT is at an SP level.
Does anyone here _really_ want Geoff Houston to be right about
Matthew Moyle-Croft Internode/Agile Peering and Core Networks
More information about the NANOG