IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 17 19:09:23 CST 2011
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20110217203639.GA3702 at mara.org>, Steve Meuse writes:
>> George Bonser expunged (gbonser at seven.com):
>>> Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
>>> there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it might be
>>> usable today could be surprising.
>> An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just lo
>> ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only o
> And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
> support it. It would take less time to fix the kernel than to argue
> over whether to fix it.
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to forklift the
devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the kernel, either.
The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a counter
productive waste of time. At best it's slightly short of break-even. At worst,
it's a huge $negative.
More information about the NANOG