IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

Thu Feb 17 18:35:33 UTC 2011

> 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.

Ok, so that implies that it is burned into hardware and as it is
ASIC-based hardware and not FPGA, they can't reprogram the hardware with
a code update (one of the advantages of FPGA-based hardware).

> 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)
> 

I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the
"middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to
conserve IP space.

> @George
> 
> 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.

The usage I have in mind would be transparent to the end stations and,
frankly, someone who produces provider gear and CPE that can take
advantage of that space is going to have a great selling point.  There
is some gold under there for someone.  240/4 is a great big "dig here"
sign if they want some of it.