Re: The point is to change it: Was: IPv4 depletion makes CNN

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

 



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



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