> > given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the > > relative ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses > > or v6 tunnels in v4 campuses, there is no incentive to do nat/v4 any > > more, and precious little incentive to do nonat/v4. > > *I* can get v6 connectivity easily (heck, I just boot my laptop and ... > > Now, having done that, I can either jump through lots of hassles > configuring a 6to4 proxy, or I can just type www.cnn.com in the > browser window. > > It isn't just whether *I* can/have done it, it's *also* about whether > the resource I'm trying to contact sees ipv6 as something that needs > doing. unless you're aware of different natural laws than i am, somebody will have to go first. i realize that there's more motivation in going second, but still, somebody will have to go first, or by definition nobody will be able to go second. being first gets a whole lot easier as more dual-stack hosts come online, thus requiring less motivation from those who could possibly be first. (certainly less motivation than being first if it means runningv6-only and finding a 6to4 proxy.) so the "relative ease" of getting v6 address space and of running dual stack really is directly relevant to whether v6 will ever reach "the tipping point." _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf