North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: David Conrad
  • Date: Tue May 29 12:18:15 2007

Jordi,

On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,

Why?

The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending the old protocol. Even the way you ask for names is different (A vs. AAAA). Why should anyone assume a one-to-one mapping between the two Internets based on those protocols?

they should not notice it.

They shouldn't, but they will. Having had the fun of trying to figure out why I lost connectivity to a site (then realizing it was because I had connected via IPv6 instead of IPv4 and IPv6 routing ... changed), the current IPv6 infrastructure is, shall we say, not quite production ready.

And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to know
them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we start, sooner
we can sort it out, if required.

Forcing end users to be exposed to the pain of transition? This is the techno-geek mindset, not the critical communications infrastructure-geek mindset. Guess which one is more appropriate to the Internet today?

Rgds,
-drc