Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)

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

 



At 04:43 31/03/2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
If IPv6 is supposed to last 100 years, that means we have ~12.5 years to burn through each /3, most likely using progressively stricter policies.

I suppose you want to say 16,66 years (only 5 /3 are available). This is a way of seeing things. This means that there are still 4 years to go for the next /3 to start being used. It seems a good forecast, in line with observation and demand. But it means that decisions are to be taken now.

There's also plenty of time to fix it if we develop consensus there's a problem.

- don't you think it is clear now there is a market rough consensus?
- what makes you believe that the IETF is the proper place to take care of such a "fix"? I love competition when it makes sense. I certainly would favor the IETF and the ITU to best compete for an IPv6 service the Internet users dearly miss. Before we have other grassroots solutions (are you sure that NATs are the only solution?).

There are obviously two schools about IPv6 numbering:
- "what exists is nearly perfect and we need to implement it to prove it, but we do not know how to get it implemented."
- "what exists is wrong and this is the reason why it is not implemented."

IMHO both schools should be given an equal chance to show they are right. And probably to address different types of problems.

BTW, deploying IPv6, I suggest that every new ICANN TLD should only accept registrations with IPv6 addresses (why new TLDs if not for a new netwok?). The day ".xxx" is accepted the network would turn IPv6.
jfc




_______________________________________________

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]