Hi Martin, > > As long as the current IPv4 characteristics are not transparently > available with IPv6, it will probably deter adoption of IPv6 for the > installed base. I would argue that this is a commonly held incorrect view: The problem is not that feature sets are unavailable, but that there is no compelling local economic case for installing IPv6. IPv4 networks could not do everything that IPX networks were doing when the Internet boom occurred. There was a compelling local use case which drove parallel adoption. What we should be doing is identifying the key features of IPv6 that cannot be addressed by IPv4, and ensuring that these are available. If these are good enough, IPv6 will be deployed. Today the only feature IPv6 has which is absolutely better than IPv4 is end-to-end addressability. Introducing CGNs places a barrier to this addressability. Really if you want address-user unlinkability, use HMIPv6 or some other signalling based protocol to get temporary addresses in the carrier. At least in that case the applications will know their addresses because they will be locally configured. Greg Daley _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf