On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm thinking 10, 15+ years out when there are lots of IPv6 only > served zones. Much the same way we no longer worry about MTA's > that don't know about MX records and no longer add A records > to accomodate them. Why would there be any IPv6 only served zones? What John and I have been trying to get across here is that there is no incentive to create an IPv6 only zone now and never will be in the future. You present an induction without a base case. Back in the days when Internet on phones meant WAP, there was a possibility of them being supported on IPv6. But now the iPhone has changed the model and the Web on a phone will look just like the rest of the net and so they have to run IPv4. That is the big flaw in the IPv6 ready program. It assumes that the incentive for transition is that IPv6 is a good in itself. It is not, in fact IPv6 will be slower (more header baggage) than IPv4 and if you are IPv6 only you will have to go through gateways. We do seem to be making some progress. I have been banging on about this problem for six years. When I started NAT was universally considered to be the problem. People are now seeing the NAT-PT approach as being a possible framework for a solution rather than something to be deprecated as 'historic' because they (wrongly) imagine true Internet is NAT-free. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf