Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Scott Leibrand writes:

> Well, in the case of IPv6 we're currently playing in a sandbox 1/8 the
> size of the available address space.

So the lifetime of IPv6 will be 8 times its current age, since the
remaining 7/8 will probably be blown just as quickly.

> So if what you say is true, and we manage to use up an exponential
> resource in linear time, then we can change our approach and try
> again with the second 1/8 of the space, without having to go through
> the upgrade pain that is the v4-v6 transition again.

It will just be a different variation on the same mistake.

> I suspect even arrogant engineers can get it right in 8 tries.

They haven't gotten it right in the past century, so I'm not
optimistic about the future.





_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]