Changed subject to reflect discussion. >> What is important: Enterprises have no clear sign of IPv6 adoption. >> ND protocol has a heavy influence on this. >> Of course, ND is not the only reason. But maybe the biggest one. > > Indeed, and I have had a consistent complaint from a British security conscious large private sector technology savvy company, that IPv6 is so much harder to secure than IPv4 they have no interest in moving. I think that part of this is the conflict between the privacy that IPv6 offers and their need to know that *every* packet on their network is entitled to be there doing what it is doing. "If we had just one more transition mechanism, or if IPv6 had just behaved this way, then it would have been deployed". I think that's a fallacy. There are many reasons why IPv6 didn't replace IPv4. Including business models, centralisation of the Internet etc. Regarding ND, you can operate IPv6 pretty much like you operate an IPv4 network. Single address to the host, even private address if you so prefer. (By pushing NAT64 we ensured that all IPv6 applications have to be NAT aware anyway). O.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
