From owner-freebsd-net Mon May 18 21:37:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA03747 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:37:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from silver.sms.fi (silver.sms.fi [194.111.122.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03724 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:37:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pete@silver.sms.fi) Received: (from pete@localhost) by silver.sms.fi (8.8.8/8.7.3) id HAA17642; Tue, 19 May 1998 07:37:23 +0300 (EEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 07:37:23 +0300 (EEST) From: Petri Helenius To: "Louis A. Mamakos" Cc: Garrett Wollman , Pierre Beyssac , net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: v6 issues In-Reply-To: <199805190031.UAA10037@whizzo.TransSys.COM> References: <13658.27284.20359.164715@silver.sms.fi> <3801.895139158@time.cdrom.com> <19980515003707.A18577@fasterix.frmug.fr.net> <199805150256.WAA29412@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <13659.51336.457818.157020@silver.sms.fi> <199805190031.UAA10037@whizzo.TransSys.COM> X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <13665.2618.836915.227355@silver.sms.fi> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Louis A. Mamakos writes: > > Given that there is no real support in the routers used in the backbone > for the Internet for IPv6, I think the characterization of "later" rather > than "sooner" is quite correct. Yes, yes, you can get code to test from > major router vendors that implement some version of IPv6, but none of the > large backbone operators are likely to put their infrastruture at risk > to run experimental code. Ok, with this we're into defining what is the timeframe of "later". Since I would imagine that FreeBSD-3.0 might get released sometime this year it would match the release plans of these major router vendors. > > The other consideration is that there is no real demand from ISP customers > for IPv6 support. I know this as I work for one of the large Internet > backbone operators, and I worry about this issue. > There is if you interpret it correctly. Everybody around here is complaining that address space is hard to come by and are spending huge $$$ to work around that with address translation and private addressing. > That having been said, IPv6 will be deployed from the "edges" of the > network inwards toward the backbone. Islands of native IPv6 will be Correct statement here would be "is being deployed". The speed or level of deployment is not impressive yet, but I would imagine that it gets a nice jumpstart from the router vendors when they release their code. > interconnected over the existing IPv4 Internet *long* before there is > native IPv6 connectivity between arbitrary end-systems. So having a > v6 stack in FreeBSD will be a useful thing. But please keep the > larger picture in mind so that you won't be disappointed. > Obviously we need major OS vendors to have released v6 code and applications built to use that in order to make this really happen. However the number of applications that really use worldwide connectivity is not that large so there is not that much updates to do before v6 will suffice for Internet connectivity and some legacy v4 applications are used in smaller scale for intra-company tasks. Pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message