[arin-ppml] A challenge to the assumption that a big DFZ isaproblem

Michel Py michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Tue Dec 15 23:09:04 EST 2009

> Chris Engel wrote:
> IETF like many institutions (including ARIN) is subject to
> institutional biases....just mention NAT66 on an IETF
> mailing list and you'll see what I mean.

This is soooo true. I learned that lesson the harsh way a while ago.

Basically this is what led us to the current status-quo with IPv6:
It is urgent to wait. Since no NAT-based migration is going to make it
there (just inventorying the transition mechanisms that have been
torpedoed because based on some kind of NAT would take some time)
everyone is in the holding pattern for the next 5+ years.

> Warren Johnson wrote:
> Is it just me or do half the messages that are meant to
> clarify people's conception about a particular subject
> (IP allocations, router hardware etc) often end in
> patronizing tones and snarky remarks?

Is it just me or a large number of messages on this list are either
totally unrealistic dreams, or implying that { ISPs | router vendors |
software vendors | enterprise operators } who have been on the job for
10 or 20 years are bozos who don't know what they are doing?

Frankly I've had enough of things on the lines of:
- It's all the fault of Microsoft Windows...
- Cisco does not know how to build a router...
- My ISP does not know how to configure BGP...
- I could do better for cheaper.... etc

While I'm at it:
In my lab, I have a couple of PC-based Juniper "routers"; they're called
"Olives": a generic PC running JunOS. Conceptually, they could take a
full BGP feed. In a lab, they're great. In a production world, they are
worth as much as this 3640 or 7200 non-VXR that one can buy on eBay for
next to nothing: nothing.

I was wondering, actually: anyone has an Olive image that supports PCI
Express and GigE NICs? Would be fun to figure out how much it can
handle. Answer in private ;-)


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list