On Feb 14, 2012 7:40 PM, "Randy Bush" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why? They would have needed updated stacks. The routers would > > have need updated stacks. The servers would have needed updated > > stacks. The firewalls would have needed updated stacks. The load > > balancers would have needed updated stacks. Many MIBs would have > > needed to be updated. DHCP servers would have needed to be updated. > > ARP would have needed to be updated, and every routing protocol. > > <rant> > > the routers had v6 code in the mid to late '90s. servers had the kame > stack before then. etc etc etc. except for dhcp, of course, as the v6 > religious zealots did not want to allow dhcp, it would make enterprise > conversion too easy. > > what we did not have was a way to deploy around the fracking > incompatibility. it was not until 2001 or so that we could even run > useful dual stack, so we early deployers had two parallel networks for > some years. > > religion has always been more important to the ietf than deployment. > look at dhcpv6, the zealots are still stonewalling router discovery. > look at the deprecation of nat-pt, now nat64/dns64. it is as if the > ipv6 high priesthood did everything in their power to make ipv6 > undeployable without very high cost. and they have succeeded admirably. > > so today, since the costs of ipv6 incompatibility and lack of feature > parity are still high, for some folk it is easier to deploy nat44444. > what a win for the internet. congratulations. > > randy >
</rant> But, this pig too shall fly Cb _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
