In message <9BBAF712-D199-4950-A516-33C830756BEC(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com>,
Yoav Nir writes:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger J=F8rgensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com>
I think that an endorsement like "I work for Cisco and we intend to impl=
ement this in every one of our products" is useful. But it's not nearly as =
useful as "this is a terrible idea, and doing this will prevent IPv6 from e=
ver gaining traction". The objections raised in last call are really the po=
int, not the endorsements.
Think I've read somewhere that the ground of good engineering (the E
in IETF) are being able to argue against your own idea, search and
look for flaws in it, and all in the name of testing it to see how it
can be made even better, is it good enough? Or simple to consider the
bigger picture, can my idea hurt the rest no matter how good it is?
There are great and very good ideas out there that isolated are
fantastic, but considered in just a bit bigger picture are horrible,
they've ruin everything around them.
I agree. IPv4 forever using CGNs may work for a lot of people and a lot of =
uses. If people remain double- or triple-natted it won't matter a bit to th=
e big web sites. =
It's far more important to hear what is not going to work with this solutio=
It's great if you can find such deficiencies in your own ideas, but we stil=
l need design reviews, code reviews, QA departments and IETF last calls so =
that others can get at your idea.
To all of you saying that this only supports IPv4 only boxes. How
do I connect up my Windows XP (with IPv6 enabled) or later box,
Linux box (from anywhere in the last decade), *BSD box (from anywhere
in the last decade), Apple box (from anywhere in the last decade)
and get both IPv4 and IPv6 without being handed a IPv4 address via
DHCP. That list pretty much covers the home computer space of dual
stack computer space.
People keep saying IPv6 provides additional solutions, and it does,
however there is a enormous dual stack legacy device problem out
there and saying "go IPv6 only" just isn't a viable for those devices
yet. They still need a IPv4 address via DHCP which has all the
issues a IPv4-only box has.
There are dual stack CPE routers today that won't provide IPv4
unless there is address space provided via DHCP. I've got one and
at some point my ISP will need to go the CGN route for IPv4. I
don't know if there will be a firmware update to support IPv4 over
IPv6 or if there is it will match the solution my ISP will choose.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
Ietf mailing list