> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > And, when I conclude that IPv6 is inevitable > (unless someone comes up with another scheme for global > unique addresses RSN), Here we disagree, I don't think that IPv6 is inevitable. When I model the pressures on the various parties in the system and consider the shortest route by which the participants can reach their short term goals there are certainly alternative schemes. I certainly do not want to see these schemes deployed but they are certainly possible outcomes. For example, a hyperNAT where the ISP NATs residential Internet as a matter of course. I suspect we will start to see this deployed on a large scale as soon as the market price for IP address allocation reaches a particular point. There is a major difference between a NAT box plugged into the real Internet and a NAT box plugged into another NAT box. It is a pretty ugly one for the residential user. I don't want to go into too much detail as it might encourage deployment but it is certainly possible to design something that works *for the ISPs*. And yes, I did give a thought to patenting the ideas in an attempt to keep them off the market (the only real utility of the USPTO these days), there is ample prior art for schemes that are even worse. IPv6 is not inevitable, the issue is how to make it so. I believe that we need a branding scheme that tells the user that they are getting a next generation Internet hookup, that they have a next generation router box etc. and that the presence of the brand means that they can absolutely expect everything they want to work to simply work without the current level of fuss. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf