On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote: > >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). what is standing in the way at the isp level are the following: a) support applications. we all know good network operators are usually anal about security. anyone have a packet sniffer for v6? b) revenue streams for isp's. currently, v4 addresses are a commodity item. they cost the end users, no matter who you go to. are the isp's willing to give up these revenue streams for better technology? perhaps the independents, but asking a telco to give up a way to make money once they have already found out how to extract it from the public is like trying to get a sperm sample from your grandmother. good luck. > 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, why and from whom? > regalian services, please define? > permanent addressing, solved. my tunnels provide with them my allocations, for all practical purposes. i have had the same v6 addresses on my hosts since i implemented v6 quite some time ago, with AAAA's pointing to the hosts i wished to make public. of course, i have added many more hosts since i implemented v6. people in the know are asking to colo in my home office simply because i have v6. independence from ISP, solved. a tunnel is portable. > plug-and-play, ... > if you mean stateless autoconfig, then that is solved too. if it is not wit you, then i suggest that you contact your OS vendor, or better yet, move to a better OS;) > Obviously as you say. The "internat is the future", with NATs adding > functions over functions. i'm just saying that since we have NATs, we already have layer 1 of the v6 network in place at the end user premises. > But we will then talk more of "corebox" than > NATs. having built one of those and implemented it on the atlanta backbone some months ago (remotely no less) there is a need for real large scale routing hardware to handle v6 expansion at the backbone and isp level. > 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 IMHO it is the end to end possibilities that are the most exciting. > .. and all the debates > this will rise). So, let talk of "interbox". > > Exciting future. Indeed. scott > jfc > > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf