-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not
>> attractive
>> at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100
>> years
>> is not an option in my view - we just need to put more effort on
>> things
>> lik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As co-chair of the multi6 WG :
On 2004-04-19, at 02.29, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> Perhaps ipv6 has some dark spots that may have made upgrading not
> attractive
> at this time, but stopping work on it and continuing ipv4 for next 100
> years
>
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > not the only thing we have to do anyway, there is no demand and
> > therefore no ROI. It is urgent to wait.
>
> The nice (but sometimes frustrating) thing about IPv6 is that we can
> take (in internet time) forever to upgrade. At this point, th
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, John Curran wrote:
: > And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down.
:
: Change providers. A request for new functionality from existing
: customers may not always get the attention it deserves, but I don't
: know of a provider that doesn't sit up and pay attention wh
On 18-apr-04, at 23:25, Paul Jakma wrote:
Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now
we wouldn't have this problem" more and more.
Which problem is that? ;)
(and if it involves NAT... sorry, no.)
There are actually problems in networking that don't involve NAT... :-)
He
> Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
> The point still stands - without real multi-homing
> so I do not have to be dependent upon a single
> vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option.
> Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even
> considered when v6 was being engineered?
Yes, although the magnitude of the probl
On Apr 18, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse
to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in
v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were do
> william(at)elan.net wrote:
> Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now?
Maybe. Given the current stockpiling plus the extension of IPv4 to 32
bits to 48 bits (32 bits+port) that shortage that we have heard for the
last 10 years would happen any time soon might not eve
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:
> - Tomorrow, IPv4 will get the small upgrades that are needed.
Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now?
Or ability to do QoS PtP over internet? Or security that is built in and
not part of additional layer?
Perhaps ipv6 has
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now
> we wouldn't have this problem" more and more.
Which problem is that? ;)
(and if it involves NAT... sorry, no.)
> See http://countipv6.bgpexpert.com/. The different numbers u
[consolidated some posts]
> Alex Bligh wrote:
> As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT
> extremely badly (SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix
> it are costly. So if IPv6 means I can avoid NAT, that can
> actually save $$$.
Likely the market will find some other way, which i
> >Renumbering is much easier.
>
> I like this one.
Now this is a funny one about IPv6.
How is renumbering *any* easier than IPv4? Yes you have autoconf
based on route advertisements/solicits on the client end from the
routers, but how is that any different than IPv4+DHCP?
Is it perhaps b/c IPv
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
[...]
Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to
migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now we
wouldn't have this problem" m
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra
> address space. I have a /29 at home, which is pretty luxurious
> compared to what most people have, but not nearly enough to give
> all my boxes a real address if I turn them all
On Apr 18, 2004, at 4:32 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra
address space. I have a /29 at home, which is pre
At 10:32 AM +0200 4/18/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down.
Change providers. A request for new functionality from existing
customers may not always get the attention it deserves, but I don't
know of a provider that doesn't sit up and pay atten
On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Oh oh I see another one taking the path that leads to the dark side.
Michel, you forgot to include the audio:
http://www.bgpexpert.com/darkside.mp3
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
Let me count the ways..
17 matches
Mail list logo
