Thoughts about ipv6 white listing

Erik Kline ek at
Sun Dec 5 04:27:59 CET 2010

>>> The right solution is: make them work, which is mainly the
>>> responsibility of the ISPs at the content provider end.
>> I'm really not sure how to parse this last sentence.  Can you clarify?
> I think my previous reply to Tore explained what I mean, and
> I need to write a draft, but now I will be out for a week, so
> I will try to work on this before the end of the year.

Ok, I think I understand.  I disagree*, but I think I know what you meant.


* pain:
[1] rfc1918 (unless you also do NAT66, in which case shoot me now)
[2] PathMTU nuisance (though pmtud /must/ work or it's a broken
deployment, I know)
[3] the fact that + 2002:: means /everyone/ must play, and
therefore incremental deployment is not sufficiently beneficial, which
is precisely what hasn't worked in all these years
[N] ...

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list