On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Christian Huitema wrote: > > % What we need is netgear and linksys to get on board and some of us > in > > % deployment land are bugging folks like that now. > > > > Jim, > > what is the issue here? I have both linksys and netgear > > kit in the home network and both pass native IPv6. granted > > not all their kit works w/ IPv6. > > > > --bill > > Linksys and Netgear build different types of equipment. Their hub and > bridge/switch products most probably pass IPv6 through without any > problem. But IPv6 will not pass through a "home router" (e.g. a DSL > router) unless that device has some adequate code.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Finland it's relatively common to build DSL networks using bridged ATM encapsulation, rather than routed ATM encapsulation, or PPPoE (PPPoA is another issue). (From IPv4 perspective, this has the benefit that the ISP can use public IP addresses better -- no need for NATting DSL router). In this scenario, the DSL router just acts as a smart bridge. Native IPv6 works just fine through the DSL router/bridge which knows nothing about IPv6. Deploying IPv6 in (some) DSL networks doesn't need to be complex, quite the contrary... -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
