North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Lazy network operators
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote: > Oh oh I see another one taking the path that leads to the dark side. Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6 (given you have 4)? And, to be more on-topic, name one good reason why a network operator would want it? Especially given that, apart from the traditional bleeding edges (academic networks), no customers are asking for it. As Paul Vixie points out, without a multihoming solution beyond that offered by 4, v6 networks will look just v4 - most of it will be on non-global address space and NAT. Not really interesting.. [snip darth vader] I know, what's worse is that I know it need not be so. (how's your MHAP doing? How's Iljitsch's geo-assigned addressing proposal?) regards, -- Paul Jakma email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to email@example.com Fortune: One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.