IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 17 12:05:53 CST 2011
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
>> > 240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
>> > 2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
>> Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
>> packet like this.
> Considering how small of a change it is, simply removing that net from
> the "black list", they could do it at any time with a code update to any
> version of IOS, provided that black list isn't burned into hardware.
I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible. I escalated,
still no-go, it was a "deep" problem. And they pointed to the IETF
saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
or whatever to fix it.
This is where i turned to the IPv6-only reality of the future
near-term internet. I suggest you do the same.
Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, .... I understand
some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
(cisco and msft)
Let me remind you, i believe opening 240/4 for private unicast was a
good ideas years ago. It is still not a bad idea, what's the harm?
But ... the answer you will hear is that IPv6 has momentum, go with
Using 240/4 is much better than providing a public allocation to
private networks. It properly makes folks consider the reality of
staying with broken ipv4 or making the much better long term
investment in IPv6.
Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
on this list. Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.
More information about the NANOG