If Google's network team honestly thought that any product with "IPv6 supported" on the label meant "Every aspect of IPv6 fully supported, tested, interoperable with other vendor's implementation - basically it'll work as well as you'd expect IPv4 to work in something released in the last five years", they're displaying incredible naiveté.
Maybe. But Google engineers don't live in a can - I'm sure they asked their vendors, "folks, what's the best way to go about this, in your opinion?" - and the IPv6 experts from Cisco/Juniper/others told them "here - like this"
Only for Google to find out the "like this" didn't work exactly as expected - when that tidbit was fed back to the vendor, I bet they were like "hm, well, you're like the 1st one doing this. Let me get back to you on why it doesn't work as it should . ..". Don't hold your breathe.
The bottom line is what Google itself says on its paper - not even the vendors are running IPv6. So the *customer* is doing the early field trial for them. Google and others end being beta testers for free, when they thought they were running production-quality, live-deployment, mission-critical ready code . . .
With all due respect - it doesn't work that way.
Cisco, Juniper, HP, have a huge customer base doing IPv4, and a minimal, almost non-existent base doing IPv6. So the R&D, new features, bug fixing and such will follow the money - ie, will go to IPv4 for the time being.
Yes, it sounds (and it is!) shortsighted - but when Google brings to the table, say, $50 mill a year - that is chump change compared to the many other *billions* that IPv4 still brings (and will keep bringing, for the foreseeable future) to the table.
And funnily enough - it's way more easier for Linksys/D-Link/Netgear to fix a bug or implement a feature on a SOHO device than it is for Cisco - not only they don't have to care about the installed base, but their customer base is used to sub-par firmware - so were they to implement an IPv6 feature in a buggy or less-than-optimal way . . . not that much of backslash. And they also have way shorter, to none, QA cycles, backward compatibility testing, interop testing, etc.
So first they bought Scientific Atlanta, and now SyPixx. Cool. I thought the idea was to shake/stirr/mix'n'match Cisco's IP know-how with Scientific Atlanta's video know-how, and come up with a killer Ciscoized-Tivo.
Now I'm afraid that while my Cisco Tivo records 'Desperateate Housewives' it might also include a camera and surveillance software so the NSA can watch me rooting my nose or scratching my nuts.
I feel safer already;)
Slashdot Mirror
If Google's network team honestly thought that any product with "IPv6 supported" on the label meant "Every aspect of IPv6 fully supported, tested, interoperable with other vendor's implementation - basically it'll work as well as you'd expect IPv4 to work in something released in the last five years", they're displaying incredible naiveté.
Maybe. But Google engineers don't live in a can - I'm sure they asked their vendors, "folks, what's the best way to go about this, in your opinion?" - and the IPv6 experts from Cisco/Juniper/others told them "here - like this" Only for Google to find out the "like this" didn't work exactly as expected - when that tidbit was fed back to the vendor, I bet they were like "hm, well, you're like the 1st one doing this. Let me get back to you on why it doesn't work as it should . . .". Don't hold your breathe.
The bottom line is what Google itself says on its paper - not even the vendors are running IPv6. So the *customer* is doing the early field trial for them. Google and others end being beta testers for free, when they thought they were running production-quality, live-deployment, mission-critical ready code . . .
With all due respect - it doesn't work that way. Cisco, Juniper, HP, have a huge customer base doing IPv4, and a minimal, almost non-existent base doing IPv6. So the R&D, new features, bug fixing and such will follow the money - ie, will go to IPv4 for the time being. Yes, it sounds (and it is!) shortsighted - but when Google brings to the table, say, $50 mill a year - that is chump change compared to the many other *billions* that IPv4 still brings (and will keep bringing, for the foreseeable future) to the table. And funnily enough - it's way more easier for Linksys/D-Link/Netgear to fix a bug or implement a feature on a SOHO device than it is for Cisco - not only they don't have to care about the installed base, but their customer base is used to sub-par firmware - so were they to implement an IPv6 feature in a buggy or less-than-optimal way . . . not that much of backslash. And they also have way shorter, to none, QA cycles, backward compatibility testing, interop testing, etc.
Right there. No, not there - THERE. Can't you SEE it ? Oh well. Have some heavy pollution too in stock. Interested?
So first they bought Scientific Atlanta, and now SyPixx. Cool. I thought the idea was to shake/stirr/mix'n'match Cisco's IP know-how with Scientific Atlanta's video know-how, and come up with a killer Ciscoized-Tivo. Now I'm afraid that while my Cisco Tivo records 'Desperateate Housewives' it might also include a camera and surveillance software so the NSA can watch me rooting my nose or scratching my nuts. I feel safer already ;)