V6 still not supported

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Wed Mar 23 00:14:01 UTC 2022

On 3/22/22 4:58 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:36 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>     On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> <snip>
>     right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My
>     experience
>     with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't give a
>     shit about the technical aspects of an ipng. If their silicon
>     forwarding
>     couldn't handle it, they weren't interested unless customers were
> Somewhere in this thread Randy sent a link to his ivtf 
> screed^H^H^H^H^H^Hposition-paper.
> I think his point there was essentially: "Hey, vendors are coin 
> operated, they build what people
> are asking for, if they are willing to pay AND if there are enough of 
> them paying"

I detect no lies here. If we didn't build the right thing from the 
standpoint of ISP's, they would have told us what they wanted instead. 
The truth is they didn't want anything but what they had with v4, and 
running off the cliff was multiple quarterly earnings away so who cares. 
IPv6 is a classic case of a standards body pushing on string, technical 
merits be damned.

That people are relitigating something from 30 years ago that has been 
proven to not make any appreciable difference to deploability is part of 
the problem, not part of the solution. There is a salt mine's worth of 
saltiness. When the mobile guys came around and said they wanted to 
listen, they got the solution they could live with. That's all it took.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220322/ccdfae87/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list