2011/6/4 Zamri Besar <[email protected]>: >> nslookup -type=AAAA www.openbsd.org 8.8.8.8 > Non-authoritative answer: > *** Can't find www.openbsd.org: No answer
I remember having similar discussion here with Theo and Claudio a while ago: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/177418 The problem is, IPv6 has some dragons hidden that don't show up in a newspaper article. You need experience to see them and even the protocol itself isn't simple. In addition, some people misunderstand the creators' intents (how many times did you use *and got working* multiple address spaces in one network to provide connection redundancy, instead of PI space, which is difficult to acquire?), others make wrong assumptions (/48s where /24 was too much already, because the space is oh so big!), try to force their old IPv4 customs (/117 for hundreds of users), act irrationally (non-/64 netmask and gateway via DHCPv6 in Linux, yay!) and suddenly the real world application turns into quite a mess. Hell, some soho routers still don't work well in IPv4, what'd you expect? You're probably going to experience some of that that the IPv6 day after tomorrow. However, I don't believe we're in a point where anyone can go back. Even if Theo, Henning and Claudio sat for a month and came up with something everyone would like, I have never met a manager willing to throw away millions of Cisco's "development" dollars. I have met very few network admins willing to learn yet another "solution". And I don't believe Microsoft is going to give Class E addresses in old Windows some welly, either. Nor anyone volunteerly giving up their 20 years old precious /16. Welcome to the human race. As a result, you're either in or out. Either you're making a living, and not-supporting IPv6 means deliberately disserving your customers (sorry everyone, but ordinary people don't give a damn about your opinion), or you're a non-profit organization, such as OpenBSD, and you can rebel against it by not using it. -- Martin Pelikan
