nanog at daork.net
Thu Feb 19 01:57:53 UTC 2009
On 19/02/2009, at 12:37 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> 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
> deploying IPv6?
From other discussion with you, your main concern is vendor support
for a few things, right?
It might be a good idea to socialise these problems so we can get lots
of people pushing vendors - even if they do not have as immediate
requirements as you do, they will want to have the problems removed so
when they *do* have immediate requirements they can go ahead and get
More information about the NANOG