Re: IPv6 news

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 22:55 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > I also presume you sent them a check and showed them the business case for
> > the upgrade? No large provider is going to upgrade anything without a
> > business reason.
>
> Current clients are already paying them at them moment are they not, as
> they apparently didn't reserve any funds for upgrades of their network,
> nor didn't take IPv6 along in the last 10 years of hardware cycles, thus
> clearly having played dumb for the last 10 years, how should their

silly me... I forgot that stable ipv6 code has been available for 10
years,  forget my protest then.

> >  Oh, and some parts, critical parts even, of v6 are still
> > 'broken'...
>
> Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP tricks
> that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4 either.
> But one won't need to upgrade a Tier 1's hardware to support shim6, as

shim6 is:
1) not baked
2) not helpful for transit as's
3) not a reality

> that will all be done at the end site and not at the "Tier 1" level, so
> that is just another bad excuse.

or bad assumptions on your part, it's perhaps a matter of perspective.