At 02:58 PM 1/3/97 -0700, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof. The greatly increased quantity of addresses should have some impact on this. Granted, for the sake of routing tables, some organization needs to manage the allocation so we don't end up with piecemeal routing but the restrictions on how many addresses folks can have should be lessened in such a circumstance.
What wide-scale implementation? - paul
Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com> writes:
May I please point out that this discussion has not mentioned the wide scale implementation of IPv6 or some derrivative thereof.
What wide-scale implementation?
Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing" IPv6? Be sure to check: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.html http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/os/ Thomas
In article <199701041357.IAA00634@hygro.raleigh.ibm.com> Tom Narten wrote:
Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing" IPv6?
Reality Check: CLNP was much more widely implemented than IPv6 has been to date. CLNP was also deployed natively in some backbones, which is not the case now or near-term for IPv6. Yet CLNP never was widely deployed or widely used, as compared with IPv4. As of now, there are no major customers who have told me or my associates that they plan to turn on IPv6 operationally -- at any time in the future. There are varying opinions on whether IPv6 will turn out to be the OSI of the 90s. There are also varying opinions on whether it is desirable for IPv6 to fly or not. Some believe that for IPv6 to fly operationally, the "6+2+8" proposal needs to be adopted. Precisely because IPv6 is not operationally deployed anywhere, followups to this thread probably don't belong on the NANOG list. Ran rja@inet.org (speaking only for myself) PS: For those not in the know, I've been working on SIP/SIPP/IPv6 since 1992 and have worked on 2 implementations in the past (Net/2, 4.4-Lite) and am currently coding up a 3rd implementation.
participants (3)
-
Paul Ferguson -
Randall Atkinson -
Thomas Narten