North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Lazy network operators
On 16-apr-04, at 17:45, Paul Vixie wrote: Unless I'm very much mistaken, this transition mechanism ("NAT-PT") translates from IPv6 to IPv4 and vice versa, NOT from IPv6 to IPv6. sure, but abusing tools for purposes other than what they were made for isI'm not entirely convinced, but replace NAT with a bunch of proxies and you basically have the same thing... and i don't imagine the site-local address ranges will be given to a RIR,I'd love to be around and watch sparks fly when they start asking for the same ugly hacks in IPv6 that make NAT work to the degree that it does in IPv4. :-) IETF multi6 wg is working on this problem. Hopefully it's possible to come as someone who cared deeply about this at one time and who watched A6/DNAME Thank you. it's important to remember that large network owners don't care about this, It looks to me like many do... and they are the ones who tell the vendors what to build. someone who wantsSo why are they sending their people to the IETF to work on mobile IPv6?? (Current MIPv6 spec is version 24 clocking in at 170 pages, implementing that can't be much fun.) someone whoMaybe to the customers of those business DSL shops? And easier multihoming sells more circuits, so I doubt we'll hear people with glass or copper in the ground complain.
|