On Feb 14, 2012 7:40 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Why? They would have needed updated stacks. The routers would
> > have need updated stacks. The servers would have needed updated
> > stacks. The firewalls would have needed updated stacks. The load
> > balancers would have needed updated stacks. Many MIBs would have
> > needed to be updated. DHCP servers would have needed to be updated.
> > ARP would have needed to be updated, and every routing protocol.
>
> <rant>
>
> the routers had v6 code in the mid to late '90s. servers had the kame
> stack before then. etc etc etc. except for dhcp, of course, as the v6
> religious zealots did not want to allow dhcp, it would make enterprise
> conversion too easy.
>
> what we did not have was a way to deploy around the fracking
> incompatibility. it was not until 2001 or so that we could even run
> useful dual stack, so we early deployers had two parallel networks for
> some years.
>
> religion has always been more important to the ietf than deployment.
> look at dhcpv6, the zealots are still stonewalling router discovery.
> look at the deprecation of nat-pt, now nat64/dns64. it is as if the
> ipv6 high priesthood did everything in their power to make ipv6
> undeployable without very high cost. and they have succeeded admirably.
>
> so today, since the costs of ipv6 incompatibility and lack of feature
> parity are still high, for some folk it is easier to deploy nat44444.
> what a win for the internet. congratulations.
>
> randy
>
</rant>
But, this pig too shall fly
Cb
_______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf