Re: IPv6 Confusion

[Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc () internode com au>]

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?

MMC
--
Matthew Moyle-Croft Internode/Agile Peering and Core Networks