IPv6 Confusion

[nanog at daork.net (Nathan Ward)]

On 19/02/2009, at 12:37 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

>
> 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?


 From other discussion with you, your main concern is vendor support  
for a few things, right?

It might be a good idea to socialise these problems so we can get lots  
of people pushing vendors - even if they do not have as immediate  
requirements as you do, they will want to have the problems removed so  
when they *do* have immediate requirements they can go ahead and get  
it working.

--
Nathan Ward