RE: dubious assumptions about IPv6 (was death of the Internet)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 18:12 15/01/04, Dean Anderson wrote:
But whether you internetwork with IPv6 and NAT, or just keep IPv4, NAT
will not go likely go away. The "math" below works out because 9 billion
people don't each need a unique IP address.  The vast majority of those
people will be serviced via NAT, as cable and dsl providers are starting
to do now.  Whether this is replaced by IPv6 inter-networks sooner or
later is probably irrelevant to the kinds of services offered to the
people behind the NATs.  The problem of course, is that once you go the
NAT route, you don't really need IPv6 as much. Then it becomes a cost
issue and a support issue, and it becomes something of a luxury rather
than a necessity.

Is there somewhere an upto date analysis of the costs per country/areas of IPv6 vs IPv4? This is the "ultima ratio" of a move and of the selection of an application to promote IPv6. Without an architectural and economical network model could people take decisions. Lobbying will make them interested, money will make them decide.
jfc







[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]