[nycbug-talk] Google and IPv6 Adoption

[Alex Pilosov]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Tim A. wrote:

> Alex Pilosov wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Tim A. wrote:
> >
> >   
> >>> Reminds me of trying to get ip6 with asterisk, which is something I
> >>> would love to see. Can be done, but it would need a proxy-less
> >>> connection to get the desired effect. IPSEC + NAT + VoIP is
> >>> sucksville.
> >>>
> >>> -jesse
> >>>       
> >> Definitely, SIP is one of the leading business arguments for IPv6, IMO.
> >>     
> > are you on crack? sip is far more broken for v6 than v4.
> >   
> 
> I've not tried it. If it has problems I wouldn't know. I'm saying, in
> terms of doing away with NAT and the need to proxy SIP, supposedly built
> in IPSEC? (gotta see how that's going to work), and the globally unique
> address per device... that all just seems like they ought to go together
> pretty well.
Myths.

See: 
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/bush-ipv6-transition.pdf
Pages 11 to 16. Actually, read through that. Science is being dropped.

> >> That will no doubt be where I'll be doing my IPv6 crash course--in a
> >> telcom test bed playing with SIP. But not till the end of the year.
> >>     
> > you like pain.
> 
> I'm kind of looking at IPv6 as the "pain" part. I was hoping SIP would
> make a fun and exciting example of something obviously useful to be done
> with it.
...not really.

the only IPv6 application that I see is vanity IP addresses for irc.

> Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> >   
> >> One of the things I've always liked most about Asterisk is IAX.
> >>     
> > iax sucks and mustdie. amateurs.
> >
> > -alex
> >   
> 
> I've heard that before, ha!
> 
> I've not done anything *big* with it. idk. Works fine at home!
> IAX2 on the trunk side, SIP inside.
> Amateurish, I suppose, but hey--it just works.
IAX doesn't scale, correct.