Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

[Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>]

On 23/04/2009, at 8:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote:

> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it  
> > should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your  
> > broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and  
> > the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.
> > So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6  
> > deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4  
> > addresses.
>
> I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years  
> into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development  
> cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY  
> published?
>
> If the IETF is talking "future" and developers are also talking  
> "future", us little guys that design, build, and maintain the  
> networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it  
> and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let  
> the IETF catch up later on.


This work is actually mostly being done by some guys at Cisco, and  
other vendors have plenty of input as well.

I would be surprised if CPEs that support the outcome of this work are  
far behind the RFC being published (or even a late draft).

--
Nathan Ward