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

> Do not mix politics to IPv6, please.
+1

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

Martin, I know my case and I have no IPv6 uplink at few locations, and my
users have no any Internet, even via cellular network. So please, it's not
about IPv6 as "extension", it's about basic network on minimal resources
where IPv6 is not possible.
Cave people want to eat, please do not tell them that they should eat only
organic food. Let them just eat what they have or they will die.



On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 16:40, Martin Huněk <hunekm at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAABCAAGBQJcgnC3AAoJELUQZepRHeVc2wQIANnSOlGBV9ZwgG/3/oJam5Oe
> bhOwiSlOxt3kPQh4mYCkPbi9V3HPnXdnOej/MTHv1bei7cKNYdz+7ey9mBNj31Dh
> HiZjLrh1pLfBhw0oMXJ38lmmkn0jTyrOWHVEXwcSIj7oYUk6QhAh6RVideHjL319
> W04+99uRkrxy8fVQLd3iN9kYIaHUXAR/zakOw/tbbmvNiSHkmnoyEx2w706NtWr8
> 97XsJ8w3XEdQHKb4jF8GrxcIZTCwE3VJ0+l6laOYoPSU5FAHur3PqhyWjxd5IrkD
> 8DnDr+53Y1N+oO/sExmEutXXertWjqiKPaSQopUIn4+p02GrL9oDCUFhOZChb+o=
> =N2iw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190312/0f112235/attachment.html>