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

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

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?

ipv6 cpe devices have been / are being developed already. the doesn't
mean there isn't more work to be done, in

> 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.

Generally the presumption is that people bring work that they are
working on to the table. I work for an equipment vendor, if there's no
reason for us to implement something why would would we expend cycles to
work on it in the IETF either?

> /RANT
>
> Jack