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

Fri Feb 18 00:52:55 UTC 2011

In message <5F90644C-5457-460F-9BC3-70802B13A270 at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> Infeasible. NAT444 is primarily needed to avoid doing a CPE forklift
> for nearly every subscriber. To deploy these addresses in that space would
> require a CPE forklift for nearly every subscriber.

Firstly it is entirely possible to do this incrementally.  Secondly
it doesn't require a fork lift upgrade.  A minimal upgrade is all
that is required.  For modern Linux boxes just setting a DHCP option
would be enough.  A two line fix in a config file.

> >> @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.
> > 
> > 
> Maybe, but, CPE is rarely a unified solution, even within the same carrier.
> 
> Owen
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org