jbates at brightok.net
Thu Feb 3 16:37:06 CST 2011
On 2/3/2011 4:17 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> Seems there's a lot of engineers out there that only want to make sure
> last year's protocols work, and are willing to totally ignore next year's.
To give them respect, they do have the job of making what currently
works keep working in the way they originally engineered them to.
Switching to IPv6 should not have had to require any changes from IPv4
outside of a larger address and some minor protocol differences. The
support tools to enhance IPv6 beyond IPv4 should be the icing.
For example. The CPE side of things and how chaining DHCPv6-PD is still
an unfinished product, yet we are saying that everyone should be a go.
There are too many configurations and setups out there to make it worth
smoothly. We are taking a step backwards from how we do things in IPv4.
I'm all for doing away with NAT on CPEs, but the work should have been
completed before now on how to properly handle CPEs. The Imperial
Geniuses apparently forgot.
As for corporate networks, NAT is perfectly fine and they can use it
until they need the new protocols we develop. Then they'll have to
adapt, but they'll at least already have some of the IPv6 work done.
More information about the NANOG