Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Statistics on IPV4 allocation in Africa as of 2016
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Fri Jun 17 06:34:18 UTC 2016
On 16/Jun/16 15:15, Andrew Alston wrote:
> If we want the development, we cannot wait for the “IETF”, because by
> doing that, we are either “Waiting for ourselves”, or “waiting for our
> vendors”, and if it’s the latter, good luck. I point out that a
> certain vendor had a roadmap, and on that roadmap were a number of
> features. They then developed another box, that contained those
> features, and all those features (all v6 related), suddenly
> disappeared off the roadmap for the other device. I’ve seen this
> happen over and over again. And you know what? It is us as operators
> and as consumers that allow this to happen. Because we sit around and
> say we are too busy to attend IETF meetings, or we don’t have the
> skills to contribute, or excuse after excuse (and I am as guilty as
> any other in this regard), but the lack of progress of v6 protocols is
> entirely our own fault, because we haven’t applied the pressure.
And this is it.
There are already a lot of IPv6 specifications either in RFC or Draft
RFC form. Getting them implemented by vendors is the problem (and one
that is not necessarily theirs). The longer this takes, the longer it
takes to get a stable implementation, never mind the implementation itself.
Vendors follow the money. However, they also follow the technology if
it's broken and needs fixing.
But they also don't sit around; their day job is to continue to evolve
the state-of-the-art. So if we don't deploy IPv6, vendors will ship new
platforms that have the newer features because - just like the rest of
us - they are short on resources.
I'm almost certain none of us have the time, energy or funds to swap out
gear every 18 months.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD