Re: IPv8 / BGP8 / CF
Marco Moock via NANOG <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 03.05.26 um 00:42 schrieb Jamie Thain: > Here's how I see it going. > > 1. The OS upgrade is transparent. > 2. The firewalls at the edge upgrade and IPv8 zone features. And there is the first issue. It will take years until very OS and hardware supports it and it will take years until operators configure it. > 3. The 10.x can now be split and operated by area. There is no need for that, they can use IPv6 internally without bothering with any external. > 4. People turn that on, and Zone Server to interoperate better inside regardless > of the Internet status. They will not like there are people who will not enable IPv6, because we "don't need it", "have enough addresses", "don't want ti", "wait further" etc. and all the excuses. Why should that differ in that case? > 5. Internally it becomes part of the OS. > 6. Even just implementing a Zone Server, and let people manage 10.x by area will > be a great option. For me that looks like more complicated than simply using an IPv6 /48, for which support is already implemented in most hardware and software. -- Gruß Marco Junk-Mail bitte an [email protected] _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/PL4NJJBLEQZRINMYXJ6ROI5LM7JG2HIR/