On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 06:55 -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6. > > OK, I'll bite. Grawl back ;) > Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large part > of the Internet is going to continue to be IPv4-only. So, what's the > functional difference between: > > - A host which has an IPv6 only address, which it cannot use (without > "borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with IPv4-only > hosts out on the global Internet. > > - A host which has an IPv4 local-only address, which it cannot use (without > "borrowing" a global IPv4 address) to comunicate directly with other IPv4 > hosts out on the global Internet. Difference is that the IPv6 host can actually communicate end-2-end globally and not only in it's local network. It is all about *global* communication, not about local communication, you can avoid IANA completely in those cases, simply use 1.2.3.4 as an IP at your convenience, you will have enough 32-bit space then, but you cannot talk to your sister on vacation on japan using VoIP who you really do not want to explain what a NAT box is and how she can get through it with a VoIP tunnel tool or other VPN tricks. Before you argue "but there is no IPv6 global connectivity yet", then please check your local Abilene site, with that nice government funded Internet2 and you will find quite a lot of activity there. Asian and European regions are much further in deployment. Not to the doorstep of most houses yet in Europe as they do in Korea and Japan, but with the aid of TunnelBroker systems one can get a long way already and these are also available on your side of the pond of course ;) Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf