V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock))

[David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>]

Tim,

On Mar 9, 2022, at 9:09 AM, Tim Howe <tim.h () bendtel com> wrote:
> Some of our biggest vendors who have supposedly supported
> v6 for over a decade have rudimentary, show-stopping bugs.

Not disagreeing (and not picking on you), but despite hearing this with some frequency, I haven’t seen much data to 
corroborate these sorts of statements.

>       A subset of these vendors will listen to you and fix the
> problems.  Give them your support and loyalty.  I want to name names so
> bad…


Perhaps the right approach would be similar for network operators to move to a timed full disclosure model (like 
Google’s Project Zero for security issues)?  In the software security world, this model seems to have had a positive 
impact in getting fixes out. If a vendor who claims v6 support doesn’t actually support v6 (or, if a vendor fixes a 
known lack of v6 support), it would seem to me that this is information that folks on NANOG (and elsewhere) would find 
useful.

Regards,
-drc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP