Thoughts about ipv6 white listing
ek at google.com
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.
 rfc1918 (unless you also do NAT66, in which case shoot me now)
 PathMTU nuisance (though pmtud /must/ work or it's a broken
deployment, I know)
 the fact that 184.108.40.206 + 2002:: means /everyone/ must play, and
therefore incremental deployment is not sufficiently beneficial, which
is precisely what hasn't worked in all these years
More information about the ipv6-ops