The use of RIPng

Sam Wilson Sam.Wilson at
Thu Jun 3 18:59:45 CEST 2010

On 2 Jun 2010, at 19:19, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> On 6/2/2010 9:45 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> 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?"
> That's a shame that you sent that.  A real shame.  You lost the
> opportunity to educate your supplier.

If that had been all I'd said I might agree with you.  As you'll see  
above that was how my text ended.

> [snip a whole load of stuff telling me what I did and didn't do and  
> what I should have done]

I have to say I'm really finding it difficult to write a civil  
response here.

I'm limited in what I can say - I really don't want to trespass on  
the relationship we have with our suppliers.  The events that led up  
to this were: vendor NDAs new generation of product, trumpeting that  
they are offering parity of features for IPv4 and IPv6 for the first  
time.  When the datasheet is eventually made public we note that some  
words are omitted and ask if that means that some features are not  
available for IPv6.  Vendor confirms that is the case.  We express  
dissatisfaction.  We are invited to say why we need that feature.   
Our response is to explain what we use the previous generations of  
the product for, saying we expect to offer the same services for IPv6  
in future and expressing surprise that matching IPv6 features are  
(still!) missing.  If the corresponding IPv4 feature hadn't been  
there for years I wouldn't have been making the point.


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

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list