[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications"....
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:41:13AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> If they are writing network based code a tunnel broker should not
> be a issue. Tunnel brokers are not that hard to use. They are
> after all just a VPN and millions of road warriers use them everyday.
Oh, for crumb's sake. You're quite right: millions of road worriers
use VPNs every day, because they involve downloading a program and
the config your IT dept says to use and that's it.
Tunnel brokers are the moral equivalent of telling the road warriors,
"Go download OpenVPN. Here are credentials. Have a nice day." This
is not to criticise tunnel brokers: they're providing a useful
service. But really, saying, "Stupid users," is not going to help
deployment. Yes, those users include application developers. There
is no -- "approaching zero" -- reason for someone in the
user-application layer of the stack to care about this today. So the
intellectual burden on checking that it works needs to be close to
zero, rather than close to whatever the burden is for being an IPv6
early implementer. Manning is right upthread. If the entire
deployment path automatically requires 84 layers of NAT sludge, that's
what gets tested, cause it "works" for "everybody".
asullivan at dyn.com