North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Jeroen Massar
  • Date: Fri Oct 14 02:42:44 2005

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 22:55 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

> I also presume you sent them a check and showed them the business case for
> the upgrade? No large provider is going to upgrade anything without a
> business reason.

Current clients are already paying them at them moment are they not, as
they apparently didn't reserve any funds for upgrades of their network,
nor didn't take IPv6 along in the last 10 years of hardware cycles, thus
clearly having played dumb for the last 10 years, how should their
customers suddenly have to cough up to the stupidity of not being able
to run a business and plan ahead into the future? As they apparently
didn't upgrade their network for 10 years, somebody has to have a fat
bankaccount by now :)

Even then, they could easily do some 'good' tunnels over their own IPv4
infrastructure, enabling IPv6 at the edges where they connect their
customers and maybe do some sensible peering and thus providing sensible
IPv6 transit to their paying customers...

>  Oh, and some parts, critical parts even, of v6 are still
> 'broken'...

Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP tricks
that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4 either.
But one won't need to upgrade a Tier 1's hardware to support shim6, as
that will all be done at the end site and not at the "Tier 1" level, so
that is just another bad excuse.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part