IPv6 is just fine. The problem is not the technology we would
transition to, it is the lack of transition strategy and refusal to
think about deployment strategy in some quarters.
While they were building the big dig in Boston they actually built an
entire interchange from scratch and then demolis
Sorry in advance for the length of the post and, in parts, the
rudeness of my spleen.
On 8 Nov 2009, at 17:55, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I assert that regardless of whether NAT66 is a good or a bad thing,
anything that layers on IPv6 must be NAT66 tolerant.
In the whole of the foregoing di
I assert that regardless of whether NAT66 is a good or a bad thing,
anything that layers on IPv6 must be NAT66 tolerant.
While folk can postulate alternative universes in which enterprises
will not demand or vendors refuse to implement NAT66, there is another
area that is harder to wish away.
Ob
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>> Only if IPv6 were worth deploying.
> Isn't this a little... late? A few hundred million devices are deployed
> with IPv6, including all the commonly deployed versions of Windows and
> IOS. By comparison, here's an overview of how an alternative might fare:
Within IET
Masataka Ohta writes:
Only if IPv6 were worth deploying.
Isn't this a little... late? A few hundred million devices are deployed
with IPv6, including all the commonly deployed versions of Windows and
IOS. By comparison, here's an overview of how an alternative might
fare:
1. Some drafts ar
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I assert that regardless of whether NAT66 is a good or a bad thing,
> anything that layers on IPv6 must be NAT66 tolerant.
Because IPv6 is a bad thing, there should be nothing on IPv6.
> Observation: Without NAT44 the internet would already have run out of
> address
