nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:31:57 -0700
Jack Bates wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user. So there is a fair chance that we'll be in good shape for IPv6 deployment before we've used up the remaining 893 million IPv4 addresses.I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY published?
ipv6 cpe devices have been / are being developed already. the doesn't mean there isn't more work to be done, in
If the IETF is talking "future" and developers are also talking "future", us little guys that design, build, and maintain the networks can't really do much. I so hope that vendors get sick of it and just make up their own proprietary methods of doing things. Let the IETF catch up later on.
Generally the presumption is that people bring work that they are working on to the table. I work for an equipment vendor, if there's no reason for us to implement something why would would we expend cycles to work on it in the IETF either?
/RANT Jack
Current thread:
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"], (continued)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] William Allen Simpson (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Adrian Chadd (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] bmanning (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Pekka Savola (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 23)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Nathan Ward (Apr 22)
- Re: NAT64/NAT-PT update in IETF, was: Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Joel Jaeggli (Apr 22)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Chris Grundemann (Apr 23)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Matthew Kaufman (Apr 23)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Roger Marquis (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Justin M. Streiner (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Jo Rhett (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Chris Adams (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Ken A (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Jo Rhett (Apr 21)