From: Iljitsch van Beijnum (no email)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2007 - 06:02:31 EDT
On 3-okt-2007, at 9:42, Randy Bush wrote:
> but the reality is ipv4 works and ipv6 doesn't.
It has very little deployment at this point in time, that's something
different.
> and unless the ivory tower purists get off their doomed thrones,
> ipv6 will die stillborn.
And unless the purists, whatever their living arrangements, get to
keep out at least some of the bad stuff that's in IPv4, the entire
effort to move to IPv6 will be a waste of time because we'll all be
in the exact same mess only with harder to remember addresses.
> there are more ipv4 nats within a 1km radius of here than there are
> v6-enabled networks on the planet. and i am at the nexus of ipv6
> deployment in the world, networking central in tokyo.
So? Still 1157 million IPv4 addresses to burn, can't realistically
expect people to upgrade to IPv6 unless they have to.
> the reality is you have a choice. nat-pt or ipv4 with massive natting
> forever. it's not a choice i like, but it's life. get over it.
I'd rather have IPv4 with massive NAT and IPv6 without NAT than both
IPv4 and IPv6 with moderate levels of NAT.
The tricky part is that we're not going to agree on that as a
community, so the status quo will persist until someone cares enough
to do something drastic that moves the entire industry in one
direction or another.
|
|
|