[address-policy-wg] PA ??? life after death

Not country/state politics. But inner politics of ISP or vendor.

Those things mentioned by you are also more political then technical. When vendor chooses not to do HW offloading it is not because it would not be possible technically, but because vendor doesn't think it would be a such big issue. It might induce a technical issue for ISP, but it started as political one.

Purely technical issue would be extension headers vs. HW based parsing, which makes it more demanding but still solvable.

But from my experience, the most challenging thing is to convince executives to invest time/money into deployment of IPv6 - the politics.

Anyway it is OT, so we might discuss it of APWG list.

Martin

Dne pátek 8. března 2019 14:02:34 CET, Stary Bezpiek napsal(a):
> W dniu 08.03.2019 o 13:19, Martin Huněk pisze:
> > Post scriptum: IPv6 is not harder or slower to deploy than IPv4. If you would
> > like to make IPv6-only network without transition mechanisms from scratch, it
> > would be easier to make than IPv4-only. You wouldn't need CGN and also HA
> > would be much easier (multiple routers on segment and so on). Technically the
> > IPv6 should be faster, allows more freedom in network architecture and should
> > require less logic in the network itself. It is mainly political problem, not
> > technical.
> >
> 
> Do not mix politics to IPv6, please.
> 
> It's still lot of technical problems with IPv6 - the main one is dealing 
> IPv6 by software (processors) instead of hardware.
> The first-hand example: Mikrotik. Lot of HW offload functions are only 
> for IPv4. Same is with some Cisco's, or other randomly pointed devices. 
> Amen.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190308/b0ff88c5/attachment.sig>