The use of RIPng
alex at digriz.org.uk
Thu Jun 3 00:50:48 CEST 2010
Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> Any vendor making and selling gear operates under a product
> feature principle.
> This is that all features can be sorted by the number
> of customers who -require- them. On top of the list are the
> features considered most critical to the most number of
> people, on the bottom the least critical. There is a price tag
> associated with each feature.
> The lower down the list you go, the chance a feature will be
> implemented is inversely proportional to it's price.
> Right now IPv6 is lower down on that feature list. The vendors
> know that as time passes it will become more important and
> so there is some weight to the idea of deploying IPv6 early,
> but what this means economically is your able to defer some of
> the cost of the IPv6 features into the future.
I would normally agree here if it was not that the feature was a L3
'thing' which is meant to be transparent to the layers above it.
For example, I want a SIP based handset. There should be no reason that
when SIP is implemented in the device by the vendor that it does not
care about whether it is operating over IPv4 and IPv6. SSH and SNMP can
also be considered similarly.
I will agree things get a bit hazy when we are talking about devices
that operate at or between L2 and L3, but for 'features' that live at L4
or above...I cannot understand why a vendor is not providing feature
There is a cost to *migrate* an existing codebase that is IPv4 only to
dualstack, however for new devices/features, there is no excuse.
Just my thoughts.
.sigmonster says: Restaurant package, not for resale.
More information about the ipv6-ops