The use of RIPng (was: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses"a problem anyway?)

Sam Wilson Sam.Wilson at
Wed Jun 2 18:45:52 CEST 2010

On 2 Jun 2010, at 17:20, George Bonser wrote:

> ...  It isn't the rolling out of v6
> per se that is the problem.  It is the lack of support tools (DNS
> management is one example) and vendor oddities that are adding
> additional barriers to networks who see the writing on the wall but  
> have
> internal operational or financial barriers.  This isn't going to  
> change
> until people globally think of v6 as the standard and not some
> "optional" requirement.

We were recently invited by a supplier to provide input on a  
particular IPv6 feature that was missing from a new product, to  
justify why they should implement it.  My text ended this way:

   "... As network operators we would expect to provide the same
   standard of service for IPv6 as for IPv4.  For that we simply
   expect parity of features between v4 and v6.  Since you already
   offer [feature X for IPv4] on these platforms, and have done
   since the [previous generation] first appeared, why *wouldn't*
   you do [feature X] for IPv6?"


The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list