In message <4D4B2E12.5000504@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/3/2011 4:17 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Seems there's a lot of engineers out there that only want to make sure last year's protocols work, and are willing to totally ignore next year's.
To give them respect, they do have the job of making what currently works keep working in the way they originally engineered them to.
Switching to IPv6 should not have had to require any changes from IPv4 outside of a larger address and some minor protocol differences. The support tools to enhance IPv6 beyond IPv4 should be the icing.
For example. The CPE side of things and how chaining DHCPv6-PD is still an unfinished product, yet we are saying that everyone should be a go. There are too many configurations and setups out there to make it worth smoothly. We are taking a step backwards from how we do things in IPv4.
The protocol was done in December 2003. Any CPE vendor could have added support anytime in the last 7 years. Did we really need to specify how to daisy chain PD requests when these vendors have been daisy chaining DHCPv4 for various option without any written specification? People have been begging the CPE vendors for IPv6 support for years.
I'm all for doing away with NAT on CPEs, but the work should have been completed before now on how to properly handle CPEs. The Imperial Geniuses apparently forgot.
Seriously. CPE vendors could have release IPv6 capable products that had a stateful firewall, DHCPv6 with prefix delegation 7 years ago. There was *nothing* stopping them except themselves. People have been retrofitting CPE devices to have this functionality for about as long as this.
As for corporate networks, NAT is perfectly fine and they can use it until they need the new protocols we develop. Then they'll have to adapt, but they'll at least already have some of the IPv6 work done.
Jack
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org