nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 08:24:36 -1000
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,We need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about "vendors" and made things work as best they could.
You're joking, right? You don't think that perhaps the fact that the Internet is seen as a critical piece of the telecommunications infrastructure on which national economies have become increasingly dependent and that people pay real money for and expect to operate 24x7x365 with full support might have something to do with why things are a bit different then when a tiny number of highly technical folks were playing around?
The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6 traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6 has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
Today we need to get more complete IPv6 coverage. And if management and monitoring work fine on IPv4 and networks are dual-stacked, why change?
Because things break?
Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher license fee for IPv6 support?
Others have pointed this out.
the *additional* cost and effort to the isp of fullly deploying dual-stack is still non-trivial. this is mightily off-pissing.Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required to turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT. And the running costs of IPv6 are also lower,
Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data showing how CGN is more expensive would be very helpful. Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- Re: legacy /8 Zaid Ali (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Owen DeLong (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Zaid Ali (Apr 04)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Michael Dillon (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Tore Anderson (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 sthaug (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Daniel Roesen (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 joel jaeggli (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Franck Martin (Apr 05)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) Lee Howard (Apr 07)
- Re: NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) David Conrad (Apr 09)
- Re: legacy /8 Mark Smith (Apr 02)
- Re: legacy /8 jim deleskie (Apr 03)