--On Sunday, June 06, 2010 14:39 -0700 Joel Jaeggli
<joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sounds like you'll need to be looking up market, you're not
> really looking for a soho router at the point where you've got
> multiple external providers.
>
> This device and it's ilk represted the ipv6 functionality
> availble in a circa mid to late 2009 home router with a retail
> price of $100-$150. They are pretty good devices.
>
> If you're comparing them to a sonic wall tz you're not really
> comparing the same class of device. by your own admission the
> later is inadequate so I'm not sure why you'd even bring it up.
Joel,
Ned has already responded to part of this and I won't repeat,
but let me respond to your last comment from my perspective (I
assume a similar network with a few servers... but I do have two
external providers). Because of the servers, both Ned and I are
clearly in the SOHO world, not the "client only" residential
one, as my ISPs remind me by having me write checks every month
for "business service" and "multiple static addresses" that
total around an order of magnitude more than my neighbors are
paying for equivalent bandwidth. But, while limited in size and
scope, they are (or at least mine) are real networks, not a VPN
parasite on an enterprise network somewhere that does the _real_
routing, etc.
Devices like the Linksys RV082 and, with a feature set that is a
little larger in some areas and smaller in others, the SonicWall
TZ and its predecessors, _do_ provide adequate support for
networks of that type when they are running IPv4-only. Foe
example, the RV082, perhaps because the designers couldn't
figure out how to do better in a box of that size and
complexity, provides for multiple public external addresses pnly
via 1:1 NAT and the SonicWall (at least the earlier one I have)
actually understands about public addresses.
FWIW, I've got some fairly serious (enterprise class or above,
not SOHO class), if old, router iron lying around here. But,
even if the vendor were providing good quality IPv6 software and
support for it (they aren't), the amount of effort needed to set
it up for this type of network would probably be too expensive
(which is most of why it got retired years ago).
My belief is that we have a serious IPv6 marketing and
transition problem until and unless we can get a level of
functionality for IPv6 (and, really, for IPv4/IPv6 mixtures of
the sorts that Ned's notes imply) at a level of investment
roughly equivalent to the costs we are now paying for IPv4
alone. I want to stress that "level of investment" and terms
like "expensive" are measured in requirements for knowledge,
maintenance, configuration fussing, etc., not just hardware.
They also include some important issues about support costs on
the vendor/ISP side: if an ISP sells a "business IPv6 service"
with certain properties and customers get into trouble, that ISP
is itself in trouble if the support requests require third-level
or engineering/design staff involvement to understand or
resolve. When the hardware costs we are talking about are in
the same range as one month's connectivity bills (and all the
numbers you and Ned mentioned are, at least for me), they just
wash out and disappear compared to aggravation, fussing, and
other sysadmin costs.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf