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

Mark Tinka mtinka at
Fri Jun 4 16:52:44 CEST 2010

On Thursday 03 June 2010 12:45:52 am Sam Wilson wrote:

>    "... 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?"

Well, the standard answer would be, "Not enough software 
engineering resources, unless you're buying 1,000 units of 
the platform".

Case in point, LDP support for IPv6 - 3 years and running 
between Cisco and Juniper? Look at when SNMP got native 
transport support for IPv6?

We'll get there, eventually, but without pressure from more 
operators, movement will be relegated to cheque-book nudges. 
Of course, we all have different priorities, so...

Keep on pushing, is all I can say. If you have more RFP's 
going out, use them.

Will do the same on this end :-).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list