NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 107
John_Brzozowski at Cable.Comcast.com
Thu Jan 31 21:18:07 UTC 2013
From: "nanog-request at nanog.org" <nanog-request at nanog.org>
Reply-To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:18 AM
To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 107
>Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:43:10 -0800
>From: joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
>To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins at arbor.net>, NANOG list
> <nanog at nanog.org>
>Subject: Re: "Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not
> have IPv6 in their applications"....
>Message-ID: <51095BAE.2020708 at bogus.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>On 11/28/12 4:17 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>>On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
>>>Getting the cpe vendors to ship in quantity requires the ISP
>>>engineering organizations to say in unison "we are deploying IPv6 and
>>>will only recommend products that pass testing".
>>Do you see any evidence of that occurring? I don't.
[jjmb] I do, where I have control and/or influence over products we
absolutely require this or the device (or software) does not get deployed
or enabled. There are cases where we deploy software that supports IPv6
but it is disabled. This is largely to ensure that my customers are not
adversely impacted or have a poor customer experience. I admit getting
quality implementations is not a trivial exercise even where good
specifications are available. I view this as part of my job as such we
are looking at techniques to streamline this process.
>>Also, a lot of broadband consumers and enterprise organizations buy and
>>deploy their own CPE. Do you see a lot of IPv6 activity there?
>As a product of having a motorola sb6121 and a netgear wndr3700 both of
>which I bought at frys I have ipv6 in my house with dhcp pd curtesy of
>commcast. If it was any simpler somebody else would have had to install
[jjmb] this is our goal simple and seamless.
>> I don't, excepting an IPv6 RFP checkbox for enterprises, which
>>doesn't have any formal requirements and is essentially meaningless
>>because of that fact.
[jjmb] an IPv6 check box on an RFP means almost nothing, IPv6 has never
been a one check box item. The rubber meets the road when a company
chooses to buy based on IPv6 functionality or better yet swaps products
out due to lack of IPv6 functionality.
>>>You claim to be looking for the economic incentive, but are looking
>>>with such a short time horizon that all you see are the 'waste'
>>>are pushing to make a quick sale, knowing that you will eventually come
>>>back for yet-another-hack to delay transition, and prop up your
>>>expertise in a
>>What I am looking for is an economic incentive which will justify the
>>[IMHO] wildly overoptimisitic claims which some are making in re
>>ubiquitous end-to-end native IPv6 deployment.
>>Otherwise, I believe it will be a much more gradual adoption curve, as
[jjmb] ubiquitous IPv6 deployment and use requires work, it is not going
to happen automatically and will require effort.
>>>The same thing happened with the SNA faithful 15 years ago, and history
>>>shows what happened there.
>>You attribute circumstances and motivations to me which do not apply.
>>Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
>> -- John Milton
More information about the NANOG