both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly, large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around to v4 NAT again.
True. Obviously the techology is of the essence. What I mean is that IPv6 will only take off the day the reason why IPv6 was designed is permitted to be used (to be an IPv4 with larger addresses). This means that users will be permitted to freely innovate in the way they use the Internet in _not_ carring about the type of address they use. And that we do not block this innovative usage in not permitting what this innovation may need, and in not stabilizing the standards. Today I think these needs include legal protection, regalian services, permanent addressing, independence from ISP, plug-and-play, ...
Obviously as you say. The "internat is the future", with NATs adding functions over functions. But we will then talk more of "corebox" than NATs. They started as NATs, but once they are under IPv6 - and not a NAT anymore - they will continue to be here, and to provide an increasing pile of services (starting with OPES, and their network overlay and all the possible new architectural non-end-to-end systems .. and all the debates this will rise). So, let talk of "interbox".
Exciting future. jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf