Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Internet
From: Randall Atkinson <rja () inet org>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:22:23 -0800

In article <199701041357.IAA00634 () hygro raleigh ibm com> Tom Narten wrote:

Chose your words carefully. What major vendor is _not_ "implementing"
IPv6? 

Reality Check:

        CLNP was much more widely implemented than IPv6 has been to date.
CLNP was also deployed natively in some backbones, which is not the case now
or near-term for IPv6.  Yet CLNP never was widely deployed or widely used, as
compared with IPv4.  

        As of now, there are no major customers who have told me or my
associates that they plan to turn on IPv6 operationally -- at any time in the
future.  There are varying opinions on whether IPv6 will turn out to be the
OSI of the 90s.  There are also varying opinions on whether it is desirable
for IPv6 to fly or not.  Some believe that for IPv6 to fly operationally, the
"6+2+8" proposal needs to be adopted.

        Precisely because IPv6 is not operationally deployed anywhere,
followups to this thread probably don't belong on the NANOG list.

Ran
rja () inet org
(speaking only for myself)

PS:  For those not in the know, I've been working on SIP/SIPP/IPv6 since
  1992 and have worked on 2 implementations in the past (Net/2, 4.4-Lite) and
  am currently coding up a 3rd implementation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault