On 11/18/2004 12:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger > than all of ipv4. Me too, but the sum total of these (both now and immediately foreseeable) is "very few". I mean, I can site the corner cases too, but what does that have to do with edge deployment? > so we can argue as to whether it's 5 years or 3 years or 10 years, and > we can argue about whether ipv6 is the best possible replacement for > ipv4, and we can argue about whether ipv6's warts can be fixed or > whether we'll have to live with them or throw it away and start over. > but ipv4 is in what the product managers call "end of life", and i hope > we're not arguing about that. IPv6 is certainly inevitable in some form or another (at a minimum, its current deployment levels are "inevitable"), but it's not inevitable "everywhere" within a sub-decade window. It's kind of fun to think about scenarios here (reinventing bang-path routing comes to mind) but I'm trying to focus on what we ought to be working on to reduce deployment friction. Granted, road-building isn't what the I* collective is good at (or at least not since Postel stopped isssuing executive fiats) but it would ultimately be far more productive, I think. I mean, we can try to fix the problems that folks are having with it (especially including the non-technical hurdles) or we can argue over whether 3% is better enough than 2% to qualify as success, the latter of which seems to be the preference around here. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf