On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:29:24PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote: > You will never hear a consumer demanding IPv6; that is technology plumbing. > The most they will demand is an app that only works because IPv6 provides > direct access between endpoint peers. You won't hear ISP's demanding IPv6 But that app has to be something particularly splendid. And in Europe at least, NAT is not as prevalent as some think it is. > unless their customers are demanding apps that run over IPv6 (even then the > consumer is more likely to use an automated tunnel and make the clueless ISP > irrelevant). You won't get new apps unless the development community sees a > viable path to personal riches. You won't get the development community to > pay attention to the simplicity afforded by IPv6 until the IETF stops > wasting time trying to extend a dead protocol. Continuing work on IPv4 only > creates the illusion that it is a viable protocol for application developers > to rely on for future income. Are you suggesting then, that all RFCs based on IPv6 should be... stopped? By the sounds of it, what you're looking for is for us as a community to refuse to deal with IPv4 any more, that we wash our hands of it, and make vendors realise that they are going to be unable to support IPv4 for more than a few years? It's brutal, but I can see the point. Thinking about a cut-off date for IPv4 would indeed provoke some interesting discussion, but I think a lot of people still want to hang onto IPv4. Even so, how does July 31st 2005 sound to everybody? -- Paul Robinson