On 19/02/2009, at 12:37 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
On 19/02/2009, at 9:20 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Who says the IPv6 solutions need to be better than IPv4?
Actually, with IPv6 I'd like _a_ solution that at least is viable
and works - it's doesn't have to be the final one, it doesn't have
to even be as good as IPv4, it just has to be able to be productized
for delivery to real customers like my mum and dad and not the 1337-
g33ks from Planet Geekdom.
Given it's 2009 and IPv6 has been around, for, well, sometime, I
find it as someone trying to implement IPv6 on a large general scale
for broadband that there's still a lot of "proposals", "drafts",
general misunderstanding and turf wars over basic stuff like how the
heck we're going to give IPv6 addresses to broadband customers.
I understand that there are lot of people reading this who've spent
time and effort trying to make forward progress and I salute you
all, but come on - let's try and make this work so that all the
lovely IPv6 stuff can be given to the masses rather than forcing us
to spend our lives squabbling about how evil NAT is at an SP level.
Does anyone here _really_ want Geoff Houston to be right about
deploying IPv6?
From other discussion with you, your main concern is vendor support
for a few things, right?
It might be a good idea to socialise these problems so we can get lots
of people pushing vendors - even if they do not have as immediate
requirements as you do, they will want to have the problems removed so
when they *do* have immediate requirements they can go ahead and get
it working.
--
Nathan Ward
