Re: RE: RE: one data point regarding native IPv6 support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



    > From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx>

    > The data (ripe ...) overwhelming proves default-on 6to4 clients +
    > thinly deployed relays = unreliable ipv6 and ipv6 deployment obstacle.

And how is making the protocol historic going to affect broken stuff that's
already been deployed (which is what is causing those observed problems) - or,
to put it more precisely, how is changing the protocol's label going to have
_more_ effect (i.e. above and beyond) than putting out a document which says
'here are some problems with using this, don't use this unless you know what
you're doing'?

    > I believe there is data to show this time is different (iana and apnic
    > are exhausted, successful v6day, docsis 3.0 and LTE deployment ...

I am personally dubious, since although technically we're now formally out of
space, I suspect we're just going to transition from a period in which it was
somewhat difficult to get IPv4 space [convincing an RIR you needed it] to
more difficult [acquiring space from a current holder] - that is, for those
organizations which don't already have space stockpiled. And that, along with
somewhat greater use of NAT - which has, of course, been keeping the Internet
functional for well over a decade) - will be the approach the market prefers.

We'll see, though, won't we?

	Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]