Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> > Cisco is just one example.  The fact is it will likely not work in
> > cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, ....  I understand
> > some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
> > your battles and know that the weight of the world is against you
> > (cisco and msft)
>
> I don't think I had general usage in mind, more along the lines of the
> "middle 4" in NAT444 that will be rolled out in many networks to
> conserve IP space.
Infeasible. NAT444 is primarily needed to avoid doing a CPE forklift
for nearly every subscriber. To deploy these addresses in that space would
require a CPE forklift for nearly every subscriber.

> > @George
> >
> > Please don't speculating on when Cisco or Microsoft will support 240/4
> > on this list.  Ask your account rep, then report back with facts.
> > Arm-chair engineering accounts for too many emails on this list.
>
> The usage I have in mind would be transparent to the end stations and,
> frankly, someone who produces provider gear and CPE that can take
> advantage of that space is going to have a great selling point.  There
> is some gold under there for someone.  240/4 is a great big "dig here"
> sign if they want some of it.
Maybe, but, CPE is rarely a unified solution, even within the same carrier.

Owen