[LINK] IPv6 doomed

[Adam Todd]

At 02:59 24/08/2008, Howard Lowndes wrote:


>David Boxall wrote:
> > <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/83058,ipv6-doomed-requires-act-of-god.aspx>
> >> ISPs and carriers have spectacularly failed with IPv6, to the point
> >> where they need to resurrect network address translation (NATs) to
> >> persist with IPv4, a leading expert has warned.
>I think before we start blaming the ISPs and carriers we should be
>pointing the bone at the gateway commodity manufacturers.  Can you think
>of any ADSL gateway box that does IPv6 natively, let alone have the
>ability to configure for IPv6.  Let's face it. most of these boxes are
>still running Linux 2.4.x

Actually every box I've had in my hands in the last, at least, two 
years, has IPv6 and I've been actively disabling it cause it creates 
routing problems in an IPv4 space.

Even my little $30 Wifi Netgear Repeater/Router jumped in with IPv6 
as it's preferance, and that was on a totally IPv4 Net 10 address 
space!  It just hopped in with ffff: as the prefix and I had to 
disable IPv6 to get routing to work at all. (Although it's mostly a bridge)

(Hmm what happened to IPv1, IPv2, IPv3 and IPv5 btw?)

I have it disabled in Windows, OSX and Linux.  And it is possible to 
run IPv6 in Linux 2.4 :)

I don't think gateways are needed.  NAT has become the 'norm' because 
people who are deploying 'networks' are box placers, they have no 
understanding of routing, network topology or dynamics.

I can rarely find a person who even knows the term variable length 
subnet' today.

IPv6 will take a native procession, when boxes re capable of 
automatic translation between IPv4 and IPv6 without the boc placers 
knowing what it means.