Eliot Lear wrote: >>The reality, instead, is that actual networks running IPv4 and IPv6 >>***CAN'T*** deal with renumbering, because of their inertia. > While I obviously have sympathy for the sentiment, I think your > statement is too strong. I believe it would be better to say that end > users have an economic incentive to avoid having to renumber, and most > are able to make use of RFC 1918 / ULAs and NAT with attendant > consequences to avoid the effort involved. I mean the obstacle against renumbering is "inertia" of existing implementations, which will not be modified regardless of whatever RFCs published later. The only chance to have deployable renumbering mechanism was in early stages of IPv6 development. It's too late now. The next chance will be when yet another IPng will be developped. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf